Legal Issues Thesis PDF

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN QUEENSLAND
Schools and the Law: Emerging Legal Issues Internationally

with Implications for School Leaders in Singapore
A dissertation submitted by
Mui Kim Teh. LLB (Hons), CertEd, FPCE
For the award of Doctor of Philosophy.
2008
ABSTRACT
Singapore schools had encountered little involvement with legal issues in the
past, and there had been a general feeling of complacency amongst educators that the
situation was unlikely to change. Yet many English-speaking countries across the world
had been experiencing increasing exposure to legal issues in their schools, and the
question was whether Singapore was likely to share the same experience over time.
Strong indications were beginning to appear that the situation was indeed changing,
including a number of reported incidents in schools and evidence of changing attitudes
amongst parents and educators.
The study set out, therefore, to examine the types of legal issues that were
emerging on the international scene, and particularly in the major jurisdictions with
relevance to Singapore, and to understand what the implications might be for
Singapore. Thus, it was intended to identify the legal issues that seemed likely to
become more prominent in the Singapore education system, to draw comparisons with
events in other countries, and to examine the strategies that school leaders might adopt
in order to manage legal risk effectively.
This exploratory study used a mixed-method design, including document analysis
and legal research, exploratory pilot interviews, in-depth interviews with verbatim
transcription, and Q Methodology, which combined quantitative and qualitative
techniques in order to interrogate and understand opinion. The study was conducted in
four phases, moving from a broad survey of developments internationally, through a
detailed analysis of issues in Singapore schools, to a deep understanding of the strategy
preferences for coping with legal risk amongst senior educators. This then gave rise to a
set of recommendations that could be used by policy makers and implementers, and by
senior personnel in schools, to avert and manage legal risk and incidence in schools.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii
List of Figures and Tables-------------------------------------------------------------------
xii
Certification Page----------------------------------------------------------------------------
xiv
Acknowledgements---------------------------------------------------------------------------
xv
Publications and Presentations Related to This Work-----------------------------------
xvi
CHAPTER ONE:
THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
1.1
The Purpose of the Study --------------------------------------------------------
1.2
Introduction -----------------------------------------------------------------------
1.3
Need for this Research-----------------------------------------------------------
1.4
Rationale for this Research------------------------------------------------------
12
1.5
Significance of Study -------------------------------------------------------------
15
1.6
Research Questions----------------------------------------------------------------
16
1.7
A Personal Approach---------------------------------------------------------------
18
1.8
Outline of this Study---------------------------------------------------------------
19
CHAPTER TWO:
METHODOLOGY
2.1
Introduction------------------------------------------------------------------------
21
2.2
The Four Phases-------------------------------------------------------------------
22
2.3
Research Strategies---------------------------------------------------------------
23
2.4
Research Design-------------------------------------------------------------------
24
ii
2.5
Document Analysis and Legal Research----------------------------------------
25
2.6
The Pilot Study - Interviews-----------------------------------------------------
26
2.7
Questionnaire---------------------------------------------------------------------
27
2.8
Interviewing-----------------------------------------------------------------------
27
2.9
Q methodology--------------------------------------------------------------------
31
2.9.1 Q methodology a priori or a postieri?------------------------------
32
2.9.2 Q methodology discovering what people mean-------------------
34
2.9.3 Q methodology and human subjectivity----------------------------
35
2.9.4 Q methodology principles---------------------------------------------
36
2.9.5 Q methodology technical procedures-------------------------------
38
2.9.5.1 The issue-------------------------------------------------------
38
2.9.5.2 The procedure------------------------------------------------
38
2.9.5.3 Administration of Q-sort------------------------------------
41
2.9.5.4 Factor analysis------------------------------------------------
43
2.9.5.5 Interview-------------------------------------------------------
43
2.9.5.6 Writing the final accounts-----------------------------------
44
2.9.6 Selection of Participants------------------------------------------------
45
CHAPTER THREE:
LITERATURE REVIEW - GLOBALISATION, RIGHTS AND ISSUES IN
EDUCATION IN SINGAPORE
3.1
Globalisation and Singapore-----------------------------------------------------
47
3.2
Globalisation and Rights---------------------------------------------------------
50
3.3
Universal Declaration of Human Rights---------------------------------------
52
3.4
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)---------------------------------
56
3.5
CRC and the Schools-------------------------------------------------------------
59
3.5.1 Compulsory Education--------------------------------------------------
60
iii
3.6
3.5.2 Corporal Punishment----------------------------------------------------
61
3.5.3 Safety in Schools---------------------------------------------------------
63
3.5.4 Special Education--------------------------------------------------------
66
3.5.5 Privacy--------------------------------------------------------------------
70
Conclusion-------------------------------------------------------------------------
71
CHAPTER FOUR:
AN OVERVIEW OF AREAS OF LAW WHICH HAVE SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT ON EDUCATION
4.1
Introduction------------------------------------------------------------------------
76
4.2
Schools and the Law--------------------------------------------------------------
76
4.3
The Tort of Negligence-----------------------------------------------------------
77
4.3.1 Duty of Care---------------------------------------------------------------
77
4.3.2 Duty of Care when is it owed?----------------------------------------
78
4.3.3 The Standard of Care----------------------------------------------------
79
4.3.4 Foreseeability of Harm--------------------------------------------------
80
4.3.5 Causation------------------------------------------------------------------
81
4.4
Other Legal Issues Arising from the Tort of Negligence --------------------
82
4.5
Criminal Force, Assault and Corporal Punishment --------------------------
83
4.6
Wrongful Confinement-----------------------------------------------------------
87
4.7
Expulsion and Suspension--------------------------------------------------------
88
4.8
Anti-discrimination Legislation Special Needs Children-------------------
89
4.9
Sexual Misconduct of Teachers - Non-delegable Duty of Care?------------
90
4.10
Privacy Laws-----------------------------------------------------------------------
92
4.11
Defamation------------------------------------------------------------------------
92
4.12
Conclusion-------------------------------------------------------------------------
95
iv
CHAPTER FIVE:
LITERATURE REVIEW - AN OVERVIEW OF AREAS OF LAW IN
EDUCATION FROM THE INTERNATIONAL SCENE
5.1
Introduction------------------------------------------------------------------------
96
5.2
Areas of Legal Issues in Education in the US and the Comparison with

other Commonwealth Countries-------------------------------------------------
97
Compulsory Education-------------------------------------------------------------
98
5.3.1 Compulsory Education in the US----------------------------------------
98
5.3
5.3.2 Compulsory Education in Australia------------------------------------- 100

5.3.3 Compulsory Education in New Zealand--------------------------------- 100
5.3.4 Compulsory Education in England--------------------------------------- 101
5.3.5 Compulsory Education in Canada---------------------------------------- 102
5.3.6 Compulsory Education in South Africa---------------------------------- 103
5.4
Privacy (Student Records)-------------------------------------------------------- 104

5.4.1 Student Records in the US----------------------------------------------- 104
5.4.2 Student Records in Australia-------------------------------------------- 105
5.4.3 Student Records in New Zealand---------------------------------------- 106
5.4.4 Student Records in England---------------------------------------------- 106
5.4.5 Student Records in Canada---------------------------------------------- 107
5.4.6 Student Records in South Africa----------------------------------------- 107
5.5
Students with Disabilities--------------------------------------------------------- 108

5.5.1 Student with Disabilities in the US------------------------------------
108
5.5.2 Student with Disabilities in Australia---------------------------------
111
5.5.3 Student with Disabilities in New Zealand----------------------------
115
5.5.4 Student with Disabilities in England-----------------------------------
117
5.5.5 Student with Disabilities in Canada-----------------------------------
119
5.5.6 Student with Disabilities in South Africa-----------------------------
120
5.6
School Safety Student Injuries and Negligence----------------------------
122
5.6.1 Student Injuries in the US----------------------------------------------
122
5.6.2 Student Injuries in Australia-------------------------------------------
124
5.6.3 Student Injuries in New Zealand---------------------------------------- 125

5.6.4 Student Injuries in England---------------------------------------------- 129
5.6.5 Student Injuries in Canada----------------------------------------------- 133
5.6.6 Student Injuries in South Africa----------------------------------------- 134
5.7
Bullying in Schools----------------------------------------------------------------
135
5.7.1 School Safety and Bullying in the US----------------------------------
135
5.7.2 Bullying in Australia------------------------------------------------------ 136

5.7.3 Bullying in New Zealand-------------------------------------------------
138
5.7.4 Bullying in England-------------------------------------------------------
141
5.7.5 Bullying in Canada-------------------------------------------------------
142
5.7.6 Bullying in South Africa-------------------------------------------------
144
Sexual Misconduct of Teachers-------------------------------------------------
144
5.8.1 Sexual Misconduct in the US-------------------------------------------
144
5.8.2 Sexual Misconduct in Australia----------------------------------------
145
5.8.3 Sexual Misconduct in New Zealand-----------------------------------
147
5.8.4 Sexual Misconduct in England------------------------------------------
150
5.8.5 Sexual Misconduct in Canada------------------------------------------
151
5.8.6 Sexual Misconduct in South Africa------------------------------------
155
Educational Malpractice: Educational Malpractice in Australia, the US

and England ---------------------------------------------------------------------
157
5.10
Other Areas of Law Concerning Education-----------------------------------
164
5.11
Child Abuse Schools: Mandatory Reporting---------------------------------
165
5.11.1 Child Abuse in the US---------------------------------------------------
165
5.8
5.9
vi
5.11.2 Child Abuse in Australia------------------------------------------------
165
5.11.3 Child Abuse in New Zealand-------------------------------------------
168
5.11.4 Child Abuse in England--------------------------------------------------
168
5.11.5 Child Abuse in Canada--------------------------------------------------
170
5.11.6 Child Abuse in South Africa--------------------------------------------
170
Behaviour Management----------------------------------------------------------
171
5.12.1 Corporal Punishment in the US----------------------------------------
171
5.12.2 Suspension and Expulsion in the US----------------------------------
173
5.12.3 Corporal Punishment in Australia-------------------------------------
174
5.12.4 Suspension and Expulsion in Australia--------------------------------
176
5.12.5 Corporal Punishment in New Zealand--------------------------------
176
5.12.6 Suspension and Expulsion in New Zealand---------------------------
177
5.12.7 Corporal Punishment in England---------------------------------------
179
5.12.8 Suspension and Expulsion in England----------------------------------
182
5.12.9 Corporal Punishment in Canada---------------------------------------
190
5.12.10 Suspension and Expulsion in Canada--------------------------------
191
5.12.11 Corporal Punishment in South Africa--------------------------------
193
5.12.12 Suspension and Expulsion in South Africa---------------------------
194
5.13
Criminal Offences, Defamation and Family Law-----------------------------
194
5.14
Summary and Discussion---------------------------------------------------------
196
5.14.1 Compulsory Education, Special Needs and Child Abuse------------
196
5.14.2 Tort of Negligence trends---------------------------------------------
198
5.12
5.14.3 Behaviour Management-------------------------------------------------- 200

5.15
Conclusion--------------------------------------------------------------------------
201
vii
CHAPTER SIX:
THE PILOT STUDY ON SCHOOLS AND THE LAW: A STUDY OF THE
LEGAL KNOWLEDGE HELD AND NEEDED BY PRINCIPALS IN SINGAPORE SCHOOLS WITH
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF SCHOOLS
6.1
Introduction------------------------------------------------------------------------
204
6.2
The Sample-----------------------------------------------------------------------
205
6.3
The Research---------------------------------------------------------------------
207
6.3.1 Methods------------------------------------------------------------------
207
6.3.2 Conduct of Research---------------------------------------------------
208
Analysis of the Questionnaire-------------------------------------------------
209
6.4.1 Knowledge of areas of law that affect school

Administration---------------------------------------------------------
209
6.4.2 Familiarity with the Principals Handbook-------------------------
210
6.4.3 Involvement in areas of law------------------------------------------
212
6.4.3.1 Corporal Punishment----------------------------------------
212
6.4.3.2 Negligence----------------------------------------------------
213
6.4.3.3 Criminal Offences--------------------------------------------
214
6.4.3.4 Family Law----------------------------------------------------
214
6.4.3.5 Contracts------------------------------------------------------
214
6.4.3.6 Other Areas of Law------------------------------------------
215
6.4.3.7 Sources of Legal literacy------------------------------------
215
Analysis of the Interviews-------------------------------------------------------
216
6.4
6.5
6.5.1 Knowledge of areas of law held by school principals (case study) 216
6.6
6.5.2 Knowledge of areas of law held and needed by school principals

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
217
6.5.3 Knowledge of areas of law perceived to be needed by school

principals------------------------------------------------------------------
219
Conclusion--------------------------------------------------------------------------
229
viii
CHAPTER SEVEN:
RESULTS
IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS WITH SCHOOL LEADERS AND THE
7.1
Introduction----------------------------------------------------------------------
234
7.2
The Participants and Conduct of Research----------------------------------
236
7.3
The Questionnaire and Interview Questions---------------------------------
239
7.4
Interview Transcripts and the Analytical Procedures----------------------
240
7.5
Close Reading of the Data------------------------------------------------------
241
7.6
Research Question 1------------------------------------------------------------
243
7.6.1 Globalisation Theme: Changing World-----------------------------
243
7.6.2 Globalisation Summary of Findings---------------------------------
246
7.6.3 CRC------------------------------------------------------------------------
248
7.6.4 CRC Summary of Findings--------------------------------------------
251
Research Question 2-------------------------------------------------------------
252
7.7.1 Students with Disabilities----------------------------------------------
254
7.7.2 Student with Disabilities - Summary of Findings-------------------
255
7.7.3 Bullying-------------------------------------------------------------------
257
7.7.4 Bullying - Summary of Findings---------------------------------------
259
7.7.5 Student Injuries---------------------------------------------------------
261
7.7.6 Student Injuries - Summary of Findings-----------------------------
263
7.7.7 Behaviour Management Corporal Punishment--------------------
266
7.7.8 Corporal Punishment - Summary of Findings-----------------------
268
7.7.9 Behaviour Management Suspension and Expulsion--------------
272
7.7.10 Suspension and Expulsion - Summary of Findings-----------------
274
7.7.11 Educational Malpractice-----------------------------------------------
276
7.7
ix
7.7.12 Educational Malpractice - Summary of Findings-------------------
277
7.7.13 Sexual Misconduct------------------------------------------------------
280
7.7.14 Sexual Misconduct - Summary of Findings--------------------------
282
7.8
286
7.9
290
7.10
Research Question 5-------------------------------------------------------------
296
7.11
Research Questions 6 and 7----------------------------------------------------
309
7.12
Conclusion-------------------------------------------------------------------------
309
CHAPTER EIGHT:
RISKS
Q METHODOLOGY: DETERMINING STRATEGIES TO AVOID LEGAL
8.1
Introduction-----------------------------------------------------------------------
312
8.2
Methodological Approach-------------------------------------------------------
314
8.2.1 A priori or a posteriori?------------------------------------------------
314
8.2.2 Generalisability----------------------------------------------------------
315
8.2.3 The issue------------------------------------------------------------------
316
8.2.3.1 Preparing and Administering the Q-sort-------------------
316
8.2.3.2 Factor Analysis and Interview------------------------------
316
8.2.4 The Accounts-------------------------------------------------------------- 317

8.2.4.1 Factor 1: The Training Solution--------------------------
317
8.2.4.2 Factor 2: The Guidelines and Leadership Solution----
318
8.2.4.3 Factor 3: The Relationship Solution--------------------
319
8.2.4.4 Factor 4: The Blend or Rojak Solution---------------
320
8.3
Discussion--------------------------------------------------------------------------
321
8.4
Analyses of the Statements and Factors --------------------------------------
324
8.5
Implications of the Q methodology Study ------------------------------------
330
CHAPTER NINE:
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
9.1
Introduction-----------------------------------------------------------------------
333
9.2
Review of the Study--------------------------------------------------------------
333
9.3
Review of the Findings-----------------------------------------------------------
334
9.4
Conclusions------------------------------------------------------------------------
336
9.4.1 Interviews-----------------------------------------------------------------
336
9.4.2 Q-Method-----------------------------------------------------------------
340
9.5
Limitations of the Study--------------------------------------------------------
341
9.6
Implications An End that Marks the Beginning----------------------------
342
9.6.1 Ideas for Further Research--------------------------------------------
342
9.6.2 Implications for Principals---------------------------------------------
344
9.6.3 Implications for Policies------------------------------------------------
345
Last Words-------------------------------------------------------------------------
347
REFERENCES---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
348
9.7
APPENDICES
Appendix 1A: List of Statements----------------------------------------------------------
375
Appendix 1B: Instructions to Participants in the Study--------------------------------
377
Appendix 2A: Pilot Study - Questionnaire-----------------------------------------------
379
Appendix 2B: Pilot Interview Questions for Principals------------------------------
383
Appendix 3A: Main Study Principals Questionnaire---------------------------------
384
Appendix 3B: Main Study Interview Questions---------------------------------------
391
Appendix 3C: Sources of Legal Knowledge---------------------------------------------
393
Appendix 4: Q methodology Project data----------------------------------------------
394
Appendix 5: Ethics Clearance for Research Project-----------------------------------
438
xi
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
CHAPTER TWO:
METHODOLOGY
Figure 2.1:
Sifting through the statements-------------------------------------------- 36
Figure 2.2:
Grid used for the Q sort---------------------------------------------------- 42
CHAPTER SIX:
THE PILOT STUDY ON SCHOOLS AND THE LAW: A STUDY OF THE
LEGAL KNOWLEDGE HELD AND NEEDED BY PRINCIPALS IN SINGAPORE SCHOOLS WITH
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF SCHOOLS
Table 6.1:
Sample Gender & Types of School------------------------------------- 207
Table 6.2:
Involvement with legal action or threatened legal action----------- 212
CHAPTER SEVEN:
RESULTS
IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS WITH SCHOOL LEADERS AND THE
Table 7.1:
Profile of Participating School Leaders (Questions 1 to 7 of the

Questionnaire)--------------------------------------------------------------- 238
Table 7.2:
Responses to Questions 9,13, 14 and 15 of the Questionnaire-
242
Table 7.3:
Globalisation Theme: Changing World

Examples of Statements about the Changing World---------
244
Research Question 2: Student with Disabilities

Statements about Students with Disabilities---------------------
254
Research Question 2: Bullying

Statements About Bullying------------------------------------------
257
Research Question 2: Student Injuries

Statements about Student Injuries--------------------------------
261
Research Question 2: Corporal Punishment

Statements about Corporal Punishment--------------------------
266
Research Question 2: Suspension and Expulsion

Statements about Suspension and Expulsion---------------------
272
Table 7.4:
Table 7.5:
Table 7.6:
Table 7.7:
Table 7.8:
xii
Table 7.9:
Research Question 2: Educational Malpractice

Statements about Educational Malpractice----------------------------- 276
Table 7.10:
Research Question 2: Sexual Misconduct

Statements about Sexual Misconduct------------------------------------ 280
Table 7.11:
Research Question 5: Statements about why principals

need to have knowledge--------------------------------------------------- 305
xiii
CERTIFICATION OF DISSERTATION
I certify that the ideas, experimental work, results, analyses,
software and conclusions reported in this dissertation are entirely
my own effort, except where otherwise acknowledged. I also
certify that the work is original and has not been previously
submitted for any other award, except where otherwise
acknowledged.
Signature of Candidate
Date
5 September 2008
Signature of Supervisor
Date
5 September 2008
Signature of Supervisor
Date
xiv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful to my supervisors, Dr Peter Albion and Dr Sally Varnham for their guidance,
encouragement and advice. Their professionalism was exemplary, and I appreciate their
willingness to respond speedily and meticulously to drafts.
I am also indebted to Professor Lee Sing Kong and Professor Gopinathan in Singapore . They were
instrumental in recognising the scope for this study, and then Professor Gopinathan supervised
the first eighteen months, and ensured, through thorough and meticulous guidance, that my
work was of a high intellectual standard. I wish to mention also Dr Chen Ai Yen at the National
Institute of Education in Singapore, whose course on qualitative research provided an excellent
basis on which to design my subsequent endeavours.
I am especially grateful to Mr Jeffrey Chan, Principal Senior State Counsel, Attorney Generals
Chambers (Singapore), Ms Dyan Zuzarte and Ms Daphne Chang, previous and incumbent Head of
the Legal Department, Ministry of Education (Singapore) for the informal conversations they held
with me that helped to ascertain the focus of this research.
School principals in Singapore are always under considerable work pressures, so I am grateful to
those senior personnel who gave willingly of their time and who provided their candid views on a
range of issues relating to schools and the law.
Dr Doug Stewart and Dr Tie Fatt Hee provided advice and academic papers in the early stages,
and their writing gave me the inspiration to pursue study in this little-researched field.
Professor Charles Russo, who is unarguably one of the world's leading writers on education and
the law, was quick to spot the potential of my study, and gave me an invaluable opportunity to
publish in a high profile and high quality arena, and I am grateful to have enjoyed access to the
work of Professor Russo and of other eminent writers in the field, such as Professor Ralph
Mawdsely, Professor Joy Cumming and Professor Jim Jackson.
It would be unforgivable not to mention my two children, my family and many friends (especially
friends in Hervey Bay), who, together, showed understanding when my study took me away from
them and prevented my giving them the attention they deserved.
I wish to dedicate this thesis to my beloved husband, Professor Ken Stott. He was the one who
believed in me and who, on those occasions when I wanted to give up, provided the love,
encouragement and relentless support I needed.
Finally, this moment cannot be passed without acknowledging the way I have been blessed by my
Lord and saviour, Jesus Christ, who is the ultimate provider of peace, strength and wisdom.
xv
PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS RELATED TO THIS WORK
Educational Research Association of Singapore Conference paper: Singapore school

principals and the law: Emerging trends from the international scene (November 2003,
co-written)
Australia and New Zealand Education Law Association Conference paper: Managing
Legal Risk in Schools: Understanding diverse perspectives (September 2004, co-written)
Academy of Principals Singapore Global Education Conference paper: Keeping the Lid
on Legal Risks in Schools: Understanding different perspectives (November 2004, cowritten)
Australia and New Zealand Education Law Association Conference paper: Children
Speaking up in Singapore: Progress or Peril (September 2005, co-written)
Australia and New Zealand Education Law Association Conference paper: When Is A
Reinstated Pupil Not Reinstated? (October 2006, co-written)
Teh, M.K. (2005). Globalisation, rights and issues in education law in Singapore.
International Journal for Education Law and Policy, Vol 1(1-2), 119-131.
Chapter entitled Teacher Rights: International Perspectives Singapore in the edited
book The Legal Rights of Teachers: International Perspectives published by Rowman
and Littlefield Publishing Group in press.
xvi
CHAPTER ONE
THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
1.1
The Purpose of the Study
This chapter begins with an explanation of the purpose and rationale of the study
to provide an overview for the reader. The study sets out: (1) to understand the
developments of legal issues in education in other jurisdictions and to explain how
those developments might have a bearing on the legal responsibilities of educators
in Singapore; (2) to find out the areas of law in which principals in Singapore are
involved, and their perception of their need for legal knowledge in school
administration; and (3) to provide carefully considered suggestions or strategies
that school leaders can utilise to manage legal risks in schools.
1.2
Introduction
This study was prompted by the changes that are taking place in Singapore society
and globally, and by how these changes may make the job of administering and
managing schools increasingly challenging. Society, systems and thinking about
issues affecting lives - in particular, rights issues - are undergoing remarkable
levels of change. Singapore is no exception. Our world has changed
irrevocablySingaporeans are now better educated and more informed. Their
desire to be involved is much stronger commented the then Deputy Prime
Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the Harvard Clubs 35th anniversary dinner on 6
January 2004 (Lee, 2004, p.1).
The landscape of education in Singapore has been dominated in recent years by

calls for significant reform. In 1997, the Prime Ministers launch of a new vision
for the education service, expressed as Thinking Schools, Learning Nation,
brought to the fore a recognition that the old ways of preparing the young will not
serve the future well. The pressure for reform has not abated and Singapore has
experienced a plethora of initiatives and drives, all designed to steer education
along a course that meets the needs of a changing society. Most recently in 2003,
the report of the Junior College/Upper Secondary review committee suggested
even more changes to the education system, aimed at further developing thinking
skills and engaging students in greater breadth and depth of learning. In 2004, the
new Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, urged education professionals to Teach
Less Learn More, and at the 2004 Work Plan Seminar (an annual seminar held by
the Ministry of Education for principals and teachers setting out the educational
visions and goals), the Minister for Education spelt out Major Works in Progress
by focusing on two key areas Enabling our Teachers and Nurturing Students,
so that the nation could prepare its children for the future, break new ground and
chart new directions for Singapore.
There is also the consequence of globalisation1. With the continuing spread of

globalisation, we are seeing not only cross-border economic and social exchange
under conditions of capitalism bringing about ever increasing global economic
integration, but are also experiencing the emergence of different modes of
telecommunication and computer technology that has made the movement of
data and information much more transnational and flexible (Gopinathan, 1995,
p.1). The consequential flow of capital, jobs, information, ideas, ideals and
attitudes all have an effect on societies, curriculum and education. This increase
in flows around the world creates what Hallak (2000, p. 24) calls the fluidity of
boundaries. Nation states find a weakening of their capacity for action when the
1
See Chapter Three for more discussion on this issue.
borders that define their territories lose their strength (Hallak, 2000). This pulling
away of influence from the nations into the global arena can, however, create
new pressures for local autonomy (Giddens, 1999). As Leonard Waks (2003),
drawing on the work of Robert Reich (1992), indicates, for economic liberalisation
to be truly efficient, it must be accompanied by international agreements
protecting basic social, political and environmental rights. One example of this
pull into the global arena is Singapores accession2 to the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) (CRC)3.
Another effect of globalisation is that education can be seen to be more of a form

of service, a commodity that can be priced and purchased, because it is seen as
primarily of benefit to the individual and his family, and this commercialisation
of education will invariably lead to greater devolution and less central control so
that schools can be more responsive, firm-like, to their customers changing
preferences and needs (Gopinathan & Sharpe, 2003, p.10). The Singapore
government recognised this as early as the mid 1980s, and in the report entitled
Towards Excellence in Schools (1986), recommendations were made to give a
limited number of high performing schools greater autonomy, the goal being to
encourage creativity and innovation (Gopinathan, 1995). Further, the Junior
College/Upper Secondary review report mentioned above, which was accepted by
the government, proposed measures such as the integrated programme4, specialist
Accession has been described as a process where states become parties to a convention which
they did not participate in during negotiations but which the original parties agree to such states
acceding to it. Accession has the same legal effect as ratification and only required the deposit of an
instrument of accession. (Commonwealth Secretariat, Human Rights Unit, United Kingdom 2006:34)
3
Singapore acceded to the CRC on 2 October 1995, which is the date the instrument of accession
was received by the United Nations General Assembly, and the date of entry force by the General
Assembly was 4 November 1995.
4
The Integrated Programmes provide a seamless secondary and junior college

education without requiring the pupils to sit for the GCE 'O' Level Examination. The time savedby
schools and private schools that were intended to fuel the process of
individualisation (Gopinathan & Sharpe, 2003, p. 4). What is this process? In a
society where knowledge transfer between individuals and communication
networks occurs at a rapid speed, society needs citizens who are capable of
acting and thinking autonomously about rapid social evolution (Hallak, 2000, p.
30). Thus, the intended process was one of building up individuals who are able to
think critically and meet the global challenges that come their way.
The governments actions discussed so far reveal an acknowledgement of the need

to establish some form of consistency between educational policies and the trends
of globalisation. The governments commitment to enhancing human capital by
better equipping individuals and society to confront and adjust to these trends
may strengthen as demands arising from closer economic and cultural integration
continue to increase.
How does this process of globalisation affect the social domain, especially with
regard to norms and procedures? A quotation from Francis Fukuyama (1992, p.
xviii) may well offer an answer:
The social changes that accompany advanced industralization, in particular
universal education, appear to liberate a certain demand for recognition
that did not exist among poorer and less educated people. As standards of
living increase, as populations become more cosmopolitan and better
educated, and as society as a whole achieves a greater equality of
not having to prepare for the GCE 'O' Level Examination is used to develop pupilsintellectual
curiosity, enrich their experience and provide a broad-based education that is more in tune with
desired real-world competencies. Students sit for the GCE A Level Examination at the end of junior
college.
condition, people begin to demand not simply more wealth but recognition
of their status
Fukuyamas sentiments suggest that globalisation generates some form of crossfertilisation of cultural forms and identities, and even homogenization of values
(Reich, 1998, p.12). It is likely, then, that this homogenization of culture and
values will usher in new responses to and greater respect for human rights in
societies. As this happens, the legal culture among the people of Singapore will
experience change. As the Singapore government implements more policies to
bring about a more entrepreneurial society, the propensity towards
homogenization of culture and values will intensify, although the government
will probably respond to this challenge in its own unique way. Nevertheless, the
end result may be an increasingly litigious society, where civil or personal rights
are more vigorously and consciously advocated. The Remaking of Singapore
report in June 2003 acknowledges that, out of economic necessity, there is an
urgency for a change in the mindsets of Singaporeans, and Dr Balakrishnan, the
then Minister of State for National Development and chairman of the Remaking
Singapore Committee, explained that the centre of gravity, of power, will alter,
the rules of engagement will change and OB (out of bounds) markers, the avenues
for expressions, regulations, all these will change (Lee, 2003, p. 3) (italics mine).
For educators in Singapore, it has become increasingly noticeable that parents too
have changed. They are more knowledgeable, educated and informed than ever
before and, on an almost weekly basis, parents write to the local newspapers
raising concerns about schooling issues. While they cannot be compared with their
American, British and Australian counterparts at this stage, they seem more
conversant with their rights than in the past, and these rights include their legal
rights. For example, a disgruntled parent of a special needs child wrote to the
newspaper expressing her disagreement with the governments policy of letting
voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) run special needs schools. As VWOs do
not have as much funding as the government schools, very often, special needs
schools survive in old and rundown buildings. Overall, she felt that special needs
children are not given a fair chance or fair treatment. She urged parents with
special needs children to speak up to, let the authorities know that their
children, though intellectually slower, are capable of learning, and deserve every
opportunity, like their intellectually able counterparts (Chua, 2003, p.25). There
are many more letters like these that reach the newspapers regularly and,
uncannily, on 23 October 2006 (same day as the previous letter), the father of an
autistic child wrote to The Straits Times bemoaning the fact that his son had to
wait many years for a place in the special needs school, and having got a place,
had to travel 40km every day just to study for two hours, and, to make matters
worse, pay $200 a month in school fees. It was further pointed out that a
mainstream student, who was the same age as his son, only paid a nominal school
fee of $5.50 a month. The parent ended the letter by questioning the
governments lack of responsibility for this group of students (Yeo, 2006).
In another example, one parent blatantly accused the government of

discriminating against children who are home schooled, under the Compulsory
Education Act (Cap. 51, 2003). The parent highlighted two discrimination issues
his child faced. First, his child was not eligible for student concessionary travel
cards, simply because he is not registered with a school; and second, his child was
not eligible for Edusave, which is a government grant that covers enrichment
programmes or additional resources for students who perform well or make good
progress academically. Under the Compulsory Education Act (Cap. 51, 2003),
children who are being home schooled are legally required to be prepared for the
Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) as well as meet the National
Education objectives. By discriminating against home schooled students in the way
mentioned above, the government is saying, Yes, you have to prepare for the
PSLE and National Education, but you will also be treated differently to those
Singaporeans attending school (Rushton, 2005, p.20). These are just some
examples, among many, of parents asserting their rights (or their childrens rights)
in the public arena, and as the nation progresses, it is likely that such voices will
be increasingly heard.
It was pointed out earlier that education could be seen as a provision of service.
The education of foreign students is the most common form of trade in education
services and there are an increasing number of foreign students being educated in
Singapore schools. Already, complaints have been reported in the press about
private educational providers failing to provide contracted services. The parents
of these foreign students may not only be more educated, but are probably more
litigious. For all the reasons mentioned above, the Ministry of Education (MOE)
is moving from a bureaucracy-dominated education system to one characterized
by greater autonomy at school level (Gopinathan & Sharpe, 2001, p. 24). This,
together with the changing attitudes of parents, may well mean a growing
community demand for greater accountability in the teaching profession. Such
accountability could be over issues such as the schools duty of care regarding the
physical safety of the child, the schools duty to prevent bullying from occurring
on school grounds, and, for students with special education needs, that those
needs are identified and met. As Stewart and Knott (2002, p. 3) note, school
principals and teachers are highly visible in the community and are personally as
well as structurally accountable.
What are the implications for educators in Singapore? It is not beyond the bounds
of possibility that teachers and principals could face the risk of being named as
defendants in the judicial process. Although they have experienced and may still
be experiencing a high level of protection from legal actions, this situation is
unlikely to continue indefinitely. It may be only a matter of time before the ways
educators discharge their legal responsibilities are challenged in court.
In Australia, where legal issues in education have been developing since the 1970s,
there is mounting jurisprudence which tests the extent of a schools duty in
relation to the physical safety of students. The Australian courts expect schools to
recognise the mischievous tendencies of children and have held that the duty to
keep students safe from physical injury extends to before and after school hours.
The principles of the law of negligence that those who have a special
relationship of control over others should exercise greater care and skill clearly
applies to the education context in that country. The other areas of law that have
impact on education and are heard in courts in Australia include issues relating to
bullying in schools, sexual abuse (by teachers) and the rights of students with
special educational needs. An area of law, though, that is yet to be heard in the
Australian courts is the duty of a school in relation to the educational well-being
of its students (Atkinson, 2002, p.4). However, the stage is set for such cases to
be heard following the House of Lords decision in the joint hearing of Phelps v.
London Borough of Hillingdon, Anderton v. Clwyd County Council, Jarvis v.
Hampshire County Council, and Re G (a minor) (2000) (Phelps), when a claim for
negligence against a school authority for failing to identify and address the
educational needs of students was recognised as a valid claim. In analysing Phelps,
Justice R. Atkinson of the Supreme Court in Queensland said in 2002: In thirty
years time, an experienced lawyer will be able to chart the development of the
law in Australia with regard to educational negligence, discrimination in the
provision of educational services and liability for educational outcomes. At
present, we can but survey the international trends and local developments to try
to determine where these developments might lead (Atkinson, 2002, p. 14).
It is doubtful that, in Singapore, we shall have to wait twenty or thirty years to

experience change, but Atkinson Js message is clear: we must look at what is
happening both locally and internationally if we are to gauge what the future
might hold. That is precisely what this study sets out to do: (1) to find out the
areas of law principals in Singapore are involved with and the legal knowledge
held and needed by them; (2) to understand the developments of legal issues in
education in other jurisdictions and to explain how those developments might
have a bearing on the legal responsibilities of educators in the local context.
1.3
Need for this Research
A survey of what is happening in other countries in the field of education and the
law reveals issues working their way onto the agenda that are very much the same
problems that surface in Singapore education. For example, an issue of current
concern in Singapore relates to bullying. In 2003, The Straits Times printed several
reports about bullying that took place in a secondary school (Nadarajan, 2003, &
Bullied, 2003). The story was about a student who was beaten up by a
schoolmate outside school, but, interestingly, as a result of that story, several
10
parents of other bully victims in that school came forward to relate similar
incidents. In one case, the bully was even expelled from the school.
Studies and research carried out in New Zealand and Britain have revealed that
bullying is a problem that affects all schools at some point (Hay-Mackenzie,
2002)5. The consequences for victims of bullying are far-reaching and statistics in
Britain show that at least 16 children commit suicide in Britain every year because
of this phenomenon (Marr & Field, 2001). ChildLine, a phone counselling service
for children in distress, concluded that promoting a culture of decency within a
school seems to be the bedrock on which real success depends. The role of the
head teacher in this process appears to be pivotal (Marr & Field, 2001, p. 149).
Thus, by reviewing the international scene, one is able to see how the
development of an issue that is just surfacing in Singapore has unfolded
elsewhere, and such experience might offer clues as to what may happen in
Singapore and, more importantly, how one can effectively manage the risks before
they become too problematic.
Another issue that is of paramount concern in other countries in the field of

education and the law and which is equally important in Singapore is the duty of
care for students physical welfare. In Australia, as noted above, there are many
negligence cases covering supervision in a range of school activities and settings,
including: classrooms, school fields, before and after school, travelling to and
5
In Japan, a type of school bullying referred to as shikato takes place in schools. Shikato is a
kind of mobbing, where a group of peers pick on one person instead of simply peer to peer
bullying. Shikato accounts for 25% of school bullying in Japan (Rayner, 1997). Bullying cases in
schools have also led to student suicides. Although the Kawasaki municipal government has enacted
an ordinance to protect children's human rights (Kawasaki Aims, 2001), the United Nations report
on childrens rights said that the central government has yet to step up measures to eliminate
bullying U.N. Report, 2004). It is interesting to note here that despite different legal and
cultural traditions, there are similar bullying issues arising in schools across jurisdictions.
11
from school, sport and excursions. Stewarts research on accidents in Victorian

schools indicated that in 1982 the accident rate in public schools was 53 per every
1000 students enrolled, with 23 out of every 1000 receiving serious injuries
(Stewart,1998a). In New Zealand, the Ministry of Educations effort to establish
minimum safety requirements led to the formalisation of the schools risk
management process in the form of Guidelines for Good Practice relating to
Education Outside the Classroom (Hay-Mackenzie & Wilshire, 2002, p. 59). In
Canada, where teachers and/or their employing boards, by acts of commission or
omission, fail to provide a student with the appropriate safe and secure learning
environment, they may be sanctioned criminally, civilly or professionally
(Anderson & Fraser, 2002, p. 183). In England, there is health and safety
legislation that ensures local education authorities and schools carry out their
duty in providing a safe learning environment for their students (Lowe, 2002).
Chan Soo Sen, Minister of State at the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of
Community Development and Sports, in the Initial Report of Singapore to the
Committee on the Rights of the Child said that, by acceding to the United Nations
(UN) Convention, Singapore is signalling its commitment to uphold the rights
and best interests of children in the country (United Nations Press Release, 2003).
This reinforces the importance of the duty of care on the part of education
professionals for the physical well-being of the child in Singapore schools.
The legislation in Singapore that pertains to education includes statutes such as

the Education Act (1957) and the School Boards Incorporation Act (Cap. 284A,
1990), which govern issues such as the establishment and management of schools,
whether government, private or government-aided. Although the Public Service
(Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations, Constitution of the Republic of Singapore
12
(1965) provide directions for disciplinary actions for teacher misconduct6, the
standards required of teachers conduct are merely set out in guidelines in
handbooks or manuals rather than in legislation. While this may be the current
position in Singapore, one that may provide some protection for educators in
avoiding unwelcome attention and litigation, legislation and the mindsets of
parents can change. Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
declares that in all actions concerning childrenthe best interests of the child
shall be a primary consideration. As a party to this Convention, Singapore may
well see increasing pressure on it to raise the legal, professional, and moral duties
of educators.
1.4
Rationale for this Research
The move towards the legalisation of education is unstoppable if one follows

international trends, and this is evident in the increase in legal processes being
used to frame and challenge policies, practices, and decision-making inschools
(Russo & Stewart, 2001, p.18). The move becomes even more inexorable if one
treats teachers as professionals, placing them in the same category as doctors,
lawyers, accountants and architects. Doing this could mean their being held liable
as professionals for the quality of their professional services. Whether or not one
considers teachers in this way, it is indisputable that the legalisation of
education (by imposing legal liability on educators) will create a greater sense of
professionalism among educators and increase the overall standards of educational
services. Russo and Stewart (2001, p.18) further argue that it is necessary for
administrators, teachers and other staff to have expertise in a wide array of
6
Teachers who are public servants appointed by the Public Service Commission cannot be dismissed
or disciplined without adherence to the Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations. For
non-public servants, the terms of their contract with the school will apply.
13
educational matters, including sufficient legal literacy to meet increasingly

sophisticated management and teaching responsibilities, from the moment they
first appear in schools. The term legal literacy refers to a basic knowledge of
those areas of law that have a direct bearing on educators responsibilities,
enabling them to function effectively in situations where relevant law applies.
In speaking with educators, the researchers perception is that in Singapore,

principals, teachers and students arguably have little or no legal literacy or
understanding of areas of law that impact their job, since the notion of
education and the law does not exist to the same extent as in other countries.
But legal issues in education do evolve and are likely to continue to do so as
significant issues enter the arena, especially those issues that relate to teachers
and schools legal responsibilities. For instance, legal cases in the United States
(US), England and Australia show that there is expanding interest in the nature
of professionalism: what rights do parents have to be guaranteed in order to
realise the expected education experience for their children? This question goes
to the heart of what a professional is, in much the same way that one thinks about
the expectations of professional groups, such as doctors, lawyers and accountants.
Similarly, since the mid-1980s, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has been making
concerted efforts to decentralise the education system and build teacher
professionalism through initiatives such as the cluster school concept, Teachers
Network and annual teachers conferences. These efforts have been in response to
globalisation challenges and the need to give teachers more space to act
autonomously, which, by implication, means more professionally (Gopinathan &
Sharpe, 2001). This process of decentralisation has invariably led to the devolving
of more decision-making powers to school management personnel and such
14
devolution moves necessitate a relocation of accountability to the school level. If

educators were to become more accountable than they are in the previous
centrally-directed system, it follows logically that the professionalism
expectations will also increase. If this is so, and if school-based professionals, with
high accountability expectations, are thought of in the same way as other
professional groups, it will be no surprise that the term "educational negligence"
may emerge to have a similar connotation to terms such as "medical negligence",
legal negligence7 and "accounting negligence". This argument is not far-fetched.
Analyses from other countries suggest that teachers may well be held liable for
the quality of their professional services8. Since education plays such a
fundamental role in society, it seems improbable that teachers can plead nonprofessional status as a defence against challenge.
The question of professionalism, while central, is surrounded by many issues.

Although Singapore does not have statutes that may have an impact on how
schools conduct themselves legally, such as the anti-discrimination legislation in
several countries, the School Standards and Framework Act (1998) in England and
the Education Standards Act (2001) in New Zealand9, the common law of tort,
especially the law of negligence, the law of contract and copyright law will
7
Barristers in England and New Zealand traditionally enjoy barristerial immunity from negligence
claims from Court and pre-trial work. However, in Arthur JS Hall v. Simmons (2002), the House of
Lords unanimously held that barristerial immunity should be abolished in light of the changes in the
law of negligence, the role of the legal profession and the administration of justice. This approach
was followed by the New Zealand Court of Appeal in the case of Chamberlains v. Lai (2003) where by
a 4 to 1 majority, the court agreed that barristerial immunity should be abolished, at least in
relation to the conduct of civil cases. In the United States, legal professional responsibility is wellestablished in that attorneys can be liable in malpractice whenever it is established that they have
failed to exercise the degree of skill and care of the average qualified lawyer: Meyer v Wagner,
429 Mass. 410, 419, 424, 709 N.E.2d 784 (1999). On the other hand, the High Court of Australia in
DOrta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) expressed a different view and held that immunity still
existed.
8
See page 157, section on Educational Malpractice in Chapter Five.
See page 147 and Chapter Five for examples of these Acts.
15
inevitably find their way into the educational arena. In fact, the MOE in July 2003
signed an agreement with The Copyright Licensing Administration Society of
Singapore to establish a Statutory Licensing Scheme to regulate the photocopying
of copyrighted materials in all government-run secondary schools and 11 junior
colleges (Koh, 2003). Indeed, as Russo and Stewart (2001 pp. 18-19) advise,
educators need a sound understanding of the law associated with the many legal
questions that they confront on a daily basis and a good starting point is for
principals to acquire sufficient legal literacy to meet the increasingly complex
challenges in the administration of schools.
As one surveys the international scene, there are many issues that already are
relevant to the Singapore context. For example, recent legislation (Compulsory
Education Act [Cap. 51, 2003]) has made primary education compulsory, and this
in itself raises interesting questions for educators. But the issue is not simply one
of the right to an education, for experience in other systems has shown a
shifting focus to the rights of children to physical and emotional well-being. In
addition, the case of Phelps10 noted earlier showed that schools can be sued for
educational malpractice arising from the schools want of due care and skill in
failing to correctly diagnose learning disabilities or to provide a sound education in
an appropriate setting. Other jurisdictions thus give clues as to why and how
judicial decisions are arrived at and provide a sound evidence basis for seeking to
avert risk in Singapore.
10
See pages 9 and 160 for more details of this case.
16
1.5
Significance of the Study
This study is an exploratory study that sets out to consider a wide range of legal
issues relating to Singapore schools, and which are likely to influence the
professional lives of teachers and principals in the foreseeable future. It also aims
to establish the knowledge and skills required by these professionals to manage in
this new environment. The study investigates those areas of the law,
internationally and locally, that might have the most impact on educators as they
carry out their professional duties, and it assesses the level of knowledge and
understanding of legal responsibility amongst principals in the Singapore education
service. Information gathered in the study may also be readily utilised by
principals and the Ministry of Education for change in educational management
and school administration.
The study also aims to offer advice on the programmes that the Ministry of
Education, other relevant agencies and schools might provide that would give
principals and teachers a working knowledge of the fundamentals of education
and the law. Educators will then be able to use their knowledge of the law or their
enhanced legal literacy as a source of guidance and protection in the performance
of their professional roles and avoid the pitfalls that may lead to litigation or
potentially litigious situations. From this standpoint, one of the major outcomes of
the study will be a legal risk management strategy for educators.
17
1.6
Research Questions
The following major research questions guide the study:

1. What roles do globalisation and the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child (1989) play in the area of rights and education in
Singapore?
2. What are the legal issues in other countries (particularly commonwealth
countries) such as England, Canada, Australia , New Zealand and the USA,
arising mainly from tort liability litigation, which have the potential to
impact upon the responsibilities of Singaporean educators?
3. What are the potential major areas of concern (e.g. behaviour
management and discipline, supervision and injury to students) relating to
schools and the law that are likely to emerge in Singapore?
4. What is the current status of legal responsibility in Singapore schools and
to what extent is the position changing - in the perception of experts,
senior educators and administrators?
5. What areas of law are principals involved with in schools in Singapore, and
to what extent are principals knowledgeable about their legal
responsibilities in relation to those areas of law?
6. How might schools develop risk management systems to cope with
significant care issues?
7. What forms of support need to be given to principals and those in
managerial positions to prepare them for the legal requirements of their
professional roles, to ensure that they are conversant with important legal
issues, can apply principles in the workplace that are robust and resistant
to challenge, and what shape should those support strategies take?
18
In this chapter, the reasons for and purpose of this research have been delineated
by examining the changes taking place in Singaporean society, the challenges
posed by globalisation, and trends with regard to education or schools and the
Law internationally. As the Ministry of Education in Singapore continues its efforts
to decentralise the education system and build teacher professionalism, the need
for school principals to have a sound professional knowledge of the fundamentals
of areas of law affecting education is argued.
1.7
A Personal Approach
In traditional approaches to research, the researcher uses quantitative or

qualitative methods to communicate their ideas and findings to the reader. This
study cannot be classified as either. Rather, having been an educator for ten years
and later a practising lawyer for seven years, the researcher embarked on a
research journey that wove together different research techniques and
approaches in an attempt to plug a noticeable gap in the research area of
Schools and the law in Singapore.
Again, in contrast to more traditional approaches, the chapter dealing with an

explanation of the methodological design and techniques adopted is located
before the review of available literature. The reason is that the literature review
is deemed to be part of the methodology, as the research problem was formulated
only after an extensive review of the literature. Apart from logic dictating such a
configuration, it was felt that this approach lands more coherence, flow and
understanding of the study.
19
1.8
Outline of this Study
In this Chapter, the researcher has examined the changes taking place in the
education arena in Singapore, briefly discussed some legal issues experienced by
schools in other jurisdictions and similarly experienced by Singapore schools, and
argued for the rationale, need and significance of embarking on this research.
Methodology is discussed in Chapter Two. An understanding of the methodological

approach underpinning the study is essential to appreciating the sequencing and
logic of the study, and hence its location.
Chapter Three is a literature review of Singapores response to globalisation. It

also examines the notion of rights in the Singaporean society and explores legal
issues which have a bearing on the education sector in Singapore.
As this study aims to provide some benefit to educators, Chapter Four gives
attention to some of the more important legal concepts pertaining to legal issues
in education. Educators who are interested in reading this study will then
hopefully have a better understanding of the issues discussed in Chapter Five.
Chapter Five is a literature review of the legal issues in education from the
international scene, in particular, commonwealth countries, and analyses how
these other jurisdictions can give us clues about averting legal risk in the
education profession in Singapore.
In Chapter Six, the findings of a pilot study on the legal knowledge held and
needed by principals in Singapore schools are presented and discussed.
20
Chapter Seven provides the first part of the main results of the study. It evaluates
what the implications of the survey findings in Chapter Five are on school leaders
in Singapore. A detailed analysis of interview data is presented and discussed.
Chapter Eight provides the second part of the main results of the study. It
discusses the findings of the Q methodology study and presents a detailed analysis
of the different perspectives educators hold when considering how to address the
development of educators ability to manage legal issues. The implications of the
Q-study are then considered.
Chapter Nine discusses the conclusions and implications of the research for school
leaders in Singapore and presents recommendations for implementation by key
personnel. The implications for further research are also discussed.
In the following chapter, a discussion of the methodology used in this study is

provided. The different phases of the research and the research strategies
employed are described. Data gathering techniques are also identified and
discussed.
21
CHAPTER TWO
METHODOLOGY
2.1
Introduction
This study is arguably the first in Singapore to explore the implications of both
common law and legislative law impacting schools, and how these two areas of
law necessitate changes to school practices. In researching this field, there are
inevitable challenges to thinking about knowing, theory and validity. Perhaps
some of these challenges are best explained by Lomax (1994, pp. 12-14), who
writes about educational research, and who rejects much of the traditional
thinking about theory and validity. Some of her views are outlined briefly as
follows:
Educational research is always tentative. We can know only at one point in

time, but education is constantly changing and our findings must always be
vulnerable.
By inquiring into our own practice, we are able to create a living form of
theory. Educational research is thus self-developing.
Working with subjective data is more difficult than with objective data. It
demands high-level skills. We get too obsessed with validity and justification
before academic audiences. Instead, we should accept the tentativeness of
our work and justify it because it is authentic.
Lomaxs final point concerns the influence that a researcher might have. Thus, if
academics set themselves up as gatekeepers of what constitutes academic
research, then the potential for significant change and improvement to school
practices resulting from such authentic work will be impeded.
22
So what is the authenticity of this study? How tentative is it and how does it
generate the potential for significant change? To respond to these questions, the
study was divided into four different phases using several interrelated
methodological techniques or processes.
2.2
The Four Phases
This research started with information gathering and speculation. The research
problem was conceptualised after an extensive review of literature on education
and the law from the international scene, and legal research into cases vis--vis
schools. Informal conversations were also held with key personnel in the Ministry
of Education, the Attorney Generals chambers, the Singapore Teachers Union
and with several school principals to ascertain the focus of the research.
The next phase was a pilot study involving a short questionnaire and semistructured face-to-face interviewing of six principals to ascertain the knowledge
of legal issues in education held and needed by them. This provided a basis for the
third phase, which was in-depth interviewing of ten principals to discuss the
emerging legal issues internationally and the implications for them as school
leaders in Singapore. As in the pilot study, a short questionnaire was administered
before the interview to ascertain some background information on the principals.
Having determined the current situation with regard to the impact of the law on
school administration, the fourth phase using a relatively unusual methodological
technique, Q methodology - was designed to draw out the best solutions to help
principals, as school administrators, develop legal risks management strategies in
schools. This methodology will be explained in detail later in this chapter.
23
2.3
Research Strategies
As suggested in the preceding sections, this study adopts an exploratory mixedmethod design that integrates contributions from both the qualitative and the
quantitative. Although interest in combining forms of quantitative and qualitative
data first came about in the 1950s, it was not until the 1990s that a distinct
mixed-method design was advocated (Creswell, 2002). Tashakkori and Teddlie,
1998, disagree that the two paradigms are mutually exclusive, or that methods
must complement the philosophical assumptions11 that researchers possess when
conducting studies. For pragmatic researchers, what works for a particular
research problem under study is what matters, and all methods should be used
in understanding a research problem (Creswell, 2002, p. 562). The expression
all methods is vague. Denzin and Lincoln (1994) are more precise in talking
about appropriateness, placing the researcher as a bricoleur, one who is
prepared to piece together tools, methods and techniques in an effort to arrive at
a multimethod solution (bricolage) (p. 2).
Each research method used in social sciences has inherent weaknesses, for
objective reality can never really be captured and the process leading to
subjective reality has its problems and limitations. One way to overcome this is to
make use of multiple or different methods and theories to provide corroborating
evidence in order to shed light on a theme or perspective (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Thus, with a bricolage, i.e., by using a multimethod or mixed-method solution,
there can be an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon in question and as a
11
Philosophical assumptions are that first, quantitative methods (e.g., pupil scores on an
instrument) are the best ways to test a quantitative worldview (e.g., measuring student
achievement objectively). Second, qualitative methods (e.g., observing pupils) should only be
conducted within a qualitative worldview (e.g., researcher finds out the answers to a problem
subjectively only through his or her lens) (Creswell, 2002).
24
strategy, it adds rigor, breadth, and depth to any investigation (Denzin &
Lincoln, 1994, p. 2).
2.4
Research Design
The nature of this research is exploratory, as it had to address issues and problems
in an area where little was known in Singapore. Such exploratory studies,
according to Singleton, Straits and Straits (1993), require a research plan that is
more open than in any other kind of research (p. 91). This requires the
researcher to carry out what Denzin and Lincoln (1994, p.2) refer to as diverse
tasks and it was with the spirit of a bricoleur that the researcher adopted what
might be known as the triangulation mixed method design (triangulation study).
This method avoids methodolatry a term described by some commentators as
faithful adherence to methods and obsession with validity, reliability, and
generalizability, at the expense of truly understanding the perspectives of the
participants by capturing their lived experiences (Curt, 1994; Janesick, 1994, p.
215). With the triangulation study, the researcher attempts to understand the
research problem by producing a bricolage, i.e., studying the principles of the
phenomenon from different methodological perspectives; collecting both
quantitative and qualitative data and using the results to analyse the problem, all
this in order to provide solutions to a problem in a concrete situation (Denzin &
Lincoln, 1994, p. 2; Creswell, 2002). For this purpose, a number of qualitative and
quantitative research methods, including document analysis, legal research,
questionnaire, interviews and Q methodology, were used. By designing the study
this way, it can strengthen the studys usefulness for other settings or subsequent
research in the area (Marshall & Rossman, 1995).
25
2.5
Document Analysis and Legal Research
As mentioned above, the research problem was conceptualised after an extensive

review of literature and some informal conversations with key personnel in
relevant institutions. This was followed subsequently (by permission from the
Singapore Teachers Union) by inspection of documents relating to incidents
occurring in schools that had legal implications. Similarly, a summary of legal
issues handled by the legal department in the Ministry of Education was obtained
for analysis, with the assistance of the Head of Legal Services at the Ministry.
In analysing the local cases, it was necessary to understand what the legal position
would be should any of these local cases reach the Singapore courts. It was thus
imperative to carry out extensive legal research on legislation and cases relating
to schools, education and the law, both from Commonwealth countries and
Singapore. The legal research involved looking up primary authorities, which
consist of written law itself (statutes, regulations and reported decisions of court
cases), and secondary authorities, comprising items such as legal dictionaries,
digests, periodicals, textbook and internet databases. By summarising cases and
carefully studying the ratio decidendi, i.e., reason(s) underpinning the judges
decisions in these cases, and by noting the workings of statutory provisions,
extracting theories and commentaries from books and articles, there is a sea of
information from which the researcher can draw a more detailed understanding of
the issues relating to the research problem.
The document analysis and legal research produced mainly research and writing
on the research problem in other countries. The question then was whether these
data and the informal conversations were in any way applicable to or
26
characteristic of the Singapore setting. In order to find out the answer to this
question, a pilot study was conducted with a small sample of principals.
2.6
The Pilot Study - Interviews
As indicated by Janesick (1994), the benefits of a pilot study include enabling the
researcher to focus on particular areas that are previously unclear, test certain
questions for the main study and uncover some insight into the shape of the
study that previously was not apparent (p. 213). The pilot study was conducted
by way of a semi-structured face-to-face interview, and it was preceded by a
questionnaire seeking background information about the principals and their
knowledge of education law.
As indicated above, this research adopts a triangulation mixed-method design. The

qualitative data obtained in the pilot study were used to explore a phenomenon,
and the findings of the pilot study supported the literature review, as well as the
views held by the participants in the informal conversations. With the information
obtained from the pilot study, the literature review and the informal
conversations, a clearer picture of the issues associated with the research
problem was gained. All this served as a basis for developing a quantitativequalitative strategy in the next two phases of the research a short principals
questionnaire and in-depth interview questions and, subsequently, a Q
methodology study. A full discussion of the Pilot Study is presented in Chapter Six.
2.7
Questionnaire
This method was used as a relatively quick and economical way of obtaining
background information about the school principals interviewed. The aim was to
27
capture the diversity of experience and background which would give some
reasonable indication of the relative importance of the law as it related to their
role as school leaders. Further administering the questionnaire first provides
collaborative evidence or triangulation and builds up a layer of understanding
when the in-depth interviews (as discussed below) take place (Miller & Glassner,
1997, p. 106).
2.8
Interviewing
Following the pilot study, semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted to

form part of the bricolage. The purpose was to obtain an indication of school
leaders perspectives on the role of school law in the education context. By using
semi-structured interviews, the researcher can gain a detailed picture of the
respondents beliefs, perceptions or even personal experiences concerning this
issue. This method also enables the researcher to enter into a dialogue with the
interviewee by following up interesting thoughts or responses that emerge in the
interview, probing beyond answers and allowing the respondents to elaborate
(Smith, 1995; May, 2001). Gubrium and Holstein (2002, p. 3) note that this form
of interviewing is qualitative and is both simple and self-evident and the data
produced is the outcome of the interaction between the interviewer and
interviewee. As pointed out by Miller and Glassner (1997, p. 106), qualitative
interviewing recognises and builds on interaction, which in turn achieves
intersubjective depth and deep-mutual understanding (and, with these, the
achievement of knowledge of social worlds).
There is a view that interviewers should be neutral and not too interactive so as
not to contaminate the data (Weiss, 1994). However, some authors argue that this
28
view overlooks the fact that we live in an interview society in which interviews
play an important role in making sense of our lives, and informal interviews
probably take place frequently in everyday situations (Silverman, 2001; Douglas,
p. 185). When the interviewer and interviewee interact with each other or have a
social encounter, it does not mean that the interviewer will taint the information
collected. As argued by Gubrium and Holstein (2002, p. 15), interviewers cannot
very well taint knowledge if that knowledge is not conceived as existing in some
pure form apart from the circumstances of its production. On the contrary, by
utilising interactive in-depth interviews, the researcher can better understand the
complex behavior of members of society without imposing any a priori
categorization that may limit the field of inquiry (Fontana & Frey, 1994, p. 366).
In fact, it allows a more flexible coverage of areas of discussion, perhaps even
novel areas, and it probably produces richer data (Smith, 1995).
Another strength of in-depth interviews is the totality of responses that may be

elicited, including the mood, tone of voice, facial expressions and hesitations. The
face-to-face interview produces insight into the subjectivity and lived experiences
of the interviewees, and as the interviewer establishes rapport with the
interviewees, this cooperative, engaged relationship can encourage deep
disclosure (Oakley, 1981; Douglas, 1985; Smith, 1995), and provide a
framework within which respondents can express their own understandings in their
own terms (Patton, 2002, p. 348).
As mentioned above, this study began as an exploratory study and was not
intended to produce findings that are representative of the issue under
investigation. In the same way, the responses from the interviews are not meant
29
to be a reflection of all the legal issues faced by school leaders, or a full

reflection of their insights into the emerging legal issues that will be faced by
them. Rather, the responses represent an indication of the legal issues that may
emerge and the experiences faced by them. As one of the desired outcomes of
this study was to obtain an indication of the importance of legal issues in
Singapore schools, only ten principals were interviewed. Unlike quantitative
research, where narrow information is collected from a large number of
respondents, qualitative interviews gather broader in-depth information from
fewer respondents and enables micro-analysis (Leonard, 2003, p. 167).
As in all research interviews, finding subjects to agree to an interview and the

process of setting up the interview is always a difficult task due to busy work
schedules or commitments of the interviewees. Although there may be ideal
outcomes when it comes to selecting interviewees, very often recruitment
routinely happens on an ad-hoc and chance basis (Rapley, 2004, p. 17). Further,
some scholars are of the view that for interviews to be successful, the
interviewees should satisfy three conditions accessibility, cognition and
motivation. Accessibility refers to the interviewee having access to the
information sought, cognition an understanding of their role in the interview,
and finally, motivation, in that they believe that their participation and answers
are important and fundamental to the research (Kahn & Cannell, 1983; Moser &
Kalton, 1983; May, 2001). Therefore, taking advantage of the opportunity arising
in the workshops on Principals and the law conducted by the researcher, several
principals who attended the workshop were approached to participate in the
interviews. Eight principals agreed to be interviewed. Being in leadership positions
and having attended a workshop in the research area, these principals not only
30
had access to the information sought by the researcher, but they understood their
role in the process and were motivated to contribute to the research. The other
two principals who were interviewed responded to an email request and were very
keen to assist in the research.
Semi-structured interviews generally take a long time (about an hour or more), so

the researcher had to ensure that the interviewees were interviewed in a location
they were most comfortable with. Of the ten principals interviewed, eight
preferred to have the interview conducted in their office while two others chose
to have the meeting in a caf. A tape recorder was used for the interviews after
obtaining the interviewees explicit permission. In deciding whether to tape
record the interview, the advantages and disadvantages of doing so were
considered.
The advantages of tape recording are numerous. At the forefront, tape recording
allows a much fuller record of the event than notes taking, as considerable
information can be lost if there is no audio record (Smith, 1995). It also allows the
interviewer to concentrate on how the interview is proceeding and interact with
the interviewee instead of spending most of the time with head down, writing
what the interviewee is saying (Rapley, 2004; Smith, 1995). With tape-recording,
the researcher can produce transcripts and then selectively draw on these
(Rapley, 2004, p. 18) when putting forward the researchers arguments.
The main disadvantage of tape recording centres around the question will the
interviewee talk? The authors in this field argue that tape-recording might
increase nervousness or dissuade frankness (Arksey & Knight, 1999, p. 105),
31
inhibit interaction or may cause the interviewee feel that he or she needs to make
the interview more interesting or dramatic, and in doing so, the account may be
altered (Minichiello et al., 1995). Undoubtedly, the responses from each school
leader were different and unique, as in every interaction, but as argued by
Czarniawska (2004), it would be both presumptuous and unrealistic to assume
that a practitioner will invent a whole new story just for the sake of a particular
researcher who happened to interview him or her. Indeed, the narratives, views
or oral reports (Douglas, 1985) of the ten principals provided valuable information
for this exploratory and indicative study, and in analysing the data, the researcher
was able to capture the richness of the themes that emerge from the responses
instead of reducing them to numbers or categories (Smith, 1995).
Other disadvantages include the time consuming affair of transcribing the taperecording and the exclusion of non-verbal behaviour such as gestures and facial
expressions (Smith, 1995; Mason, 1996). Nevertheless, a tape-recorder was used
for the interviews, as the researcher felt that the advantages of tape-recording
outweighed the disadvantages. Further, as most of the interviewees knew the
researcher (having previously interacted in a lecture setting), the interviewees did
not object to the tape-recorder being used and indicated that they were prepared
to trust the researcher not to misuse the information recorded.
2.9
Q methodology
This study can also be described as problem-solving, as it set out to identify and
examine the current situation with regard to the impact of the law on school
administration, and then to provide information which principals and others could
use for managing or preventing legal risks in schools (see research questions 6 and
32
7 in Chapter One). The approach used for this part of the study was Q
methodology, which is a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches in
a single method. As this methodological approach may be unfamiliar to many
researchers, the theoretical underpinnings and some of the key principles that
guide its application will be explained.
2.9.1 Q methodology a priori or a postieri?

In a common research approach, a researcher observes, describes, counts and
charts, and arrives at interpretations and conclusions in the light of prior
understanding and knowledge. Such an approach is based on a set of ontological
and epistemological assumptions about the way in which knowledge is accessed,
and it forms a paradigm that has been universally accepted as almost the only way
of proceeding with investigation into management problems (Crowther &
Limerick, 2000), or in this study, management solutions. Researchers tend to
devise the most complex constructs in an attempt to investigate a phenomenon,
approaching it at a tangent, instead of investigating the phenomenon itself.
Observation checklists and cleverly worded questionnaires are worked out in order
to arrive at the researchers conclusions about what the individuals value
preferences are. Why dont the researchers simply ask the person directly
whether he or she values A more highly than B?
Adopting such an approach may mean we have to endure uncertainty as we try to

make sense of the subject's words and meanings, which are unique to that
individual, and different from the understanding that others may draw from them.
Thus, responses to questions and scales have meanings which may be different
from those of the observer or the researcher. As Stainton Rogers (1991, p.9)
33
notes, "when an individual marks an item on an attitude scale, they are not
expressing their opinion (i.e. making explicit a single implicit and enduring
essence), rather they are selecting one from a range of contradictory
attitudes. They are choosing which one to express at a particular moment."
Seen in this light, is there coherent purpose in asking people questions or
administering rating scales if decisions have already been taken as to what the
responses mean?
In the study of subjectivity, the subject alone, as a partner in the research

(Ribbins & Sherratt, 1992), can provide suitable measures, and this means
employing investigative approaches that enable the subject to provide the
explanation of the issue or phenomenon, and to engage his or her own
measurements and observations. Thus, Q methodology12 is a research technique or
strategy that relies on gathering information and then applying concepts to it,
rather than trying to locate data in predetermined concepts and theories.
In this study with school principals, there were no a priori definitions; no attempts
to infer. All the data that was received was used. From this perspective, one had
to expect the unexpected and accept new explanations of the relevance of law to
school leaders and their preferred strategies to avoid legal risk ones that may
never have been considered. The opinions that this research yielded represented a
set of explanations about what the law means to principals and how it should be
managed, and such opinions could not be derived from the literature. Further, an
understanding of these explanations may have to give rise to new theory about
12
A detailed explanation of this methodology can be found in Brown (1980).
34
issues such as what steps should be taken to manage legal risk and how one might
elevate principals understanding of the issues involved.
2.9.2 Q methodology discovering what people mean

For this part of the bricolage, the researcher started off with the researchers
own perceptions of the situation, because she had been involved in several ways
in working with educators, talking with them, and seeing for herself what the law
meant to schools and the people in them. But words were not put into peoples
mouths: rather, as explained below, the situation was set up in such a way that
people were able to say what they wanted to say, and then the researcher hoped
subsequently to discover something about what they meant. As argued by
Wittgenstein (1971), the meanings an individual may attach to his words may very
well be entirely different from everyone elses. To accept this approach, we have
to accept that, amongst the participants in the research, there are separate
worlds of experience, belief and reality; but and this is an important caveat
they are not limitless: there is a pattern if we know how to look for it.
In approaches characteristic of the positivist paradigm, the researcher puts

together the bits and pieces, and it is often the researchers subjectivity that is
brought to bear on the data. It is the researchers synthesis. By contrast, in Q
methodology, it is the subject who assembles the puzzle in a synthetic picture of
his or her own preferences. This modelling takes place in the Q sort (a collection
of statements written in pieces of card). Every item in the sort is related one to
another in a distinctive way. This synthesising process is central to the
methodology. The sort represents the whole response that cannot be broken
down.
35
2.9.3 Q methodology - and human subjectivity

Q methodology is thus designed to investigate the individuals subjectivity. Using
this method, the individual was asked to construct a model of his or her subjective
preferences about the issue of law and legal risk in schools. The way in which
individuals placed statements in relation to one another revealed the relative
subjective importance attached to their perceptions. Significance could be
attached to the differences, since the differences in scores between items in the
instrument reflected differences in the amount of importance given to them by
the individual concerned. Meaning was then drawn from the way in which the sort
was completed a posteriori, that is, after the event.
The sample, then, in Q methodology is the collection of statements that form the
Q sort. This is an important distinction to make. In other methodologies, the
sample refers to the persons who are the subjects in the research. In Q
methodology, the statements are intended to form a thoroughly representative
sample of the whole field of opinion, perception, view and preference about the
issue in question. Whereas, in other methodologies, the concern is to infer a
relationship between those researched and the whole population of which they
are a sample part, the concern in Q methodology is to sample adequately the
range of opinion, perception, view, preference and so forth about the issue. The
statements, in this project, were a sample of opinions about what should be done
to help schools avoid issues that might give rise to legal concern or action.
From this, it can be seen that there is no concern about the relationship between
a sample of people and the population of which they are a representative part.
36
Rather, the concern is with the model of opinion (or perceptions) that statistically
typifies people who relate to it. Such a model is expressed, through a process of
factor analysis, as a factor, and the factor is best described by Brown (1980) as a
generalised abstraction of a particular outlook or value orientation. Thus, people
who load highly on Factor A may be generalised as having similar models of
opinion.
While those who feel great discomfort with the absence of a focus on the
population of subjects (people) may criticise the methodology, their approaches
frequently err by failing to sample the issue domain. Thus, in their methods, the
researcher may have confidence in the conditions under which results were
obtained, but he or she may have less confidence in what they are saying about
the issue. In Q method, on the contrary, the researcher samples the issue by
placing the participants in the study in control of the classification process
(Stainton Rogers, 1991, p. 130), and the data from Q methodology are literally
what participants make of a pool of items germane to the topic of concern when
asked to rank them (Stainton Rogers, 1995 pp. 179-180).
Figure 2.1 Sifting through the

statements
2.9.4 Q methodology - principles
So, a large number of statements
relating to an issue, and drawn from
diverse sources, represents the
population. William Stephenson
37
(1986) terms this stage of the research as the concourse. The statements are
then sifted and condensed to yield a representative pool of propositions
(Stainton Rogers, 1995, p. 184). Figure 2.1 shows the process of sifting through the
statements to eliminate identical ones.
The individual respondent operates with the statements, using them as stimuli, to
arrange them in a configuration that represents his or her point of view.
Essentially, they are rank ordered. All the Q sorts are then inter-correlated and
put through a factor analysis process. Factors, in this methodology, are best
described as clusters of persons who rank the statements in approximately the
same way. Thus, those who load highly on the same factor may be deemed to
have a commonly shared perspective.
So that the following paragraphs can be set in context, the stages involved in this
part of the study are outlined and a brief explanation of how each stage operated
is given:
1.
The issue was defined.
2.
Statements about the issue were collected.
3.
Participants sorted the statements by setting them in a grid (administering

the Q-sort).
4.
The scores from the grids were factor analysed and provisional accounts
written.
5.
Follow-up interviews took place with identified individuals.
6.
The factors from the analysis were written as final accounts.
38
2.9.5 Q methodology technical procedures

2.9.5.1 The issue
One of the concerns that arose from this study was how educators in leadership
positions mainly in schools and the Ministry of Education (MOE) understood
the law having an impact on their work and the best strategies for averting legal
risk. Even where situations did not have any serious repercussions, there was also
a concern that issues might demand a great deal of time, attention and anxiety,
and so the intention was to understand how educators felt they might create
conditions in which they could concentrate on the core business of schooling
without unpleasant and unnecessary distractions.
2.9.5.2 The procedures

In developing the concourse, the researcher simply wrote down everything she
heard, read or thought about the issue. These items emerged as statements about
what should be done to avert legal risk in schools, and they expressed views and
opinions obtained from casual conversations, interviews, books, journals and
newspapers. Once the researcher reached the point of diminishing returns, i.e.
when the same information was repeated with little new, the concourse was
drawn to a close.
In finalising a list of statements that the researcher could use for the Q sorts, she
had to apply two criteria: comprehensiveness and heterogeneity (Stephenson,
1953). In other words, she had to ensure that her statements covered a broad
range of opinion about the issue under investigation; and that the statements
were clearly different one from the other. As observed by Wendy Stainton Rogers
(1991, p. 130), the researcher has to avoid a situation where the participants
39
complain that the research has not provided the right statements to enable them
to fully express their opinions.
This process was facilitated by some categorisation of the first list of statements.
For example, the concourse stage of the research yielded statements about the
MOE, principals, parents, training methods, standard operating procedures and a
host of other potential categories. Even when sifting through for the first time, it
was realised that one could categorise in several ways, for many if not most of the
statements contained several categorisable elements. For instance, the simple
statement The MOE should organise a training event exclusively for principals
could be categorised in three ways: under MOE, because it indicates the MOE
should take responsibility; under training, because that is one method of giving
people the requisite knowledge; or under principals, because the statement
indicates that only principals should be involved. But this is all a distraction,
because the intention was only to ensure that the statements to be used
eventually covered the issue thoroughly, and that all the statements were
sufficiently different to enable the respondents to sort them easily.
The above may appear to suggest that the researcher is making her theory explicit
by categorising data, but this did not form a basis for the analysis of responses. It
was purely a means of making sure there was good material with which the
participants could work. The field was covered adequately and each statement
had something different to convey. This was probably borne out by the fact that
only 11 out of 47 respondents suggested some new statements that the researcher
might have included (all participants were invited to do this.) However, closer
inspection revealed that these suggestions did not really cover new items, but
40
reinforced their views about particular items that were already in the instrument.
Indeed, for some, it seemed to be a way of venting their feelings about what,
precisely, should be done. For others, they simply made observations about the
increasing importance of the law; while one participant quoted the references of
two verses from the Bible!
The list of statements started off with 162 items, all coherent answers to the
question: What should be done if anything in our schools to ensure we dont
encounter legal difficulties or, at least, to minimize the risk of legal challenge?
Much depends on the complexity of the issue under investigation, but, for this
issue, the concourse took several weeks. However, prior to the concourse, several
months had been invested in reading the available literature.
The methodology accepts it is too problematic for participants to sort such large
lists of statements, partly because of the strain on the memory, so some reduction
had to take place, and this was done by looking for statements that carried
identical ideas. (A detailed and partly statistical explanation is given in Browns
(1980) authoritative work on Q methodology of why statement reduction can take
place and how the effects of such reduction make negligible difference to the
final factors that emerge.) In some cases, the language was almost the same, so it
was relatively straightforward to condense such statements into one. Further
reduction was achieved by the process of categorisation mentioned above (Brown,
1980).
The reduction process was not without challenges. The first attempt at reduction
left the researcher with over 90 statements; the second attempt with 80; and the
41
third try with 68. Even at that point, the researcher was constantly questioning
whether she had discarded important statements and retained duplicate
statements. She referred time and time again to the question and tested each
statement against it. After going through the list about ten times, each time
taking some out and reinserting others and even partially rewriting some
statements in order to combine them the researcher ended up with a list of 47,
all of which she was confident answered the central question. This was ideal,
because 40-50 statements are seen as the best sample size for this technique
(Brown,1980).
As far as possible, the original language was retained, especially of those

statements that were given orally by principals. They had an authenticity about
them that gave life and realism to the set of statements. Reluctantly, the wording
of some statements had to be changed, not for clarity in this case, but in order to
assimilate several ideas into a single statement. Again reluctantly, a few
vernacular phrases had to be edited, which, while appealing, made the
statements too long to fit into the boxes for the Q sort.
2.9.5.3 Administration of Q sort

Once a stage was reached where a list of statements had been generated and
reduced to manageable and representative proportions, the Q sort was prepared.
Each statement was numbered randomly and put on a separate piece of card. The
final lists of statements are shown in Appendix 1A. Written instructions were given
to each participant and these are shown in Appendix 1B. This is how the Q sorts
proceeded:
42
1.
Subjects read through the statements to gain an overall impression. They
divided them into roughly three equal groupings: those with which they strongly
agreed; those with which they strongly disagreed (or felt were the least useful
ideas); and those with which they neither strongly agreed nor disagreed, or which
were unclear, meaningless, contradictory or doubtful.
2.
They then arranged their statements on the grid in such a way as to reflect
their relative preferences. The statements with which they agreed the strongest
were placed at the extreme right hand side, while those that they rejected, did
not think were very good ideas, or disagreed with the most were placed at the
extreme left hand side. Thus, they were able to construct a model of their point
of view by relating each statement one to the other. Figure 2.2 shows what the
grid used for the Q sort looked like.
Figure 2.2 Grid used for the Q-sort

Figure 1 Grid used for the Legal Risk Strategies study
-5
-4
-3
I strongly disagree
OR I see these as
the least effective
ideas or strategies
-2
-1
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
I strongly agree
that these are the
most effective
ideas or strategies
Please write below any comments you have about things that can be done to help
schools avoid risks of legal action OR statements that you feel are missing
Name: Mr/Mrs/Mdm/Ms
43
2.9.5.4 Factor analysis

The scores from each participants grid were then entered into a dedicated Q
methodology software programme (PQMethod). (Q factor analysis can be
performed by using the SPSSx Factor procedure or by the use of a dedicated Q
software package [Stainton Rogers, R., 1995]). The programme carried out an
inverted factor analysis of the data. Factor analysis is a way of reducing
correlated measurements to a smaller number of values for ease of study and
consequent understanding. To explain, the factors that emerged from the analysis
were the models of opinion about what should be done in or for schools to avoid
legal challenge. These models showed how opinions, beliefs and perceptions were
put together. In any given model, there was a distinctive story, with some
things more important than others, and some things included and others excluded.
Factor analysis, as it is used in Q methodology, is a method of determining how
individuals have classified themselves: the sorts fall into natural groupings by
virtue of being similar or dissimilar to one another. If two persons were of similar
mind about the strategies for dealing with legal risk, their Q sorts would be similar
and they would both end up being associated with the same factor.
2.9.5.5 Interview
What factor analysis could not tell us was why people ranked statements in
distinctive ways, why they saw some things as important and others as
unimportant, and why they strongly supported some statements and strongly
rejected others. In answering the question Why? individuals whose sorts were
significantly correlated to a given factor helped to explain the essence of the
factor through follow up interviews.
44
To facilitate this process, some initial accounts or storylines were prepared in

order to give the data some flow. The researcher then took these provisional
stories to the exemplars: those who correlated highly against a given factor.
Through interview, they confirmed or modified the understandings the researcher
gained from looking at the way in which the factors were put together, and they
explained to her why certain items were placed in certain ways. The interviewees
helped the researcher to clear up anomalies: for example, there were times when
it was unclear why one statement generated agreement, yet another compatible
statement generated disagreement. To the researcher, it did not make sense. But
that betrayed the researchers minimal understanding of the perspective, and it
was the interviewee who would explain the reasoning. The outcome of this very
important part of the process was a heightened awareness of why certain choices
were made. It was a chance to explore the subjects unique logic and thus to
deepen understanding. And, being pragmatic, it was also a useful way of checking
on the veracity of the response, since the subject would usually wax lyrical about
those items placed at the extremities.
2.9.5.6 Writing the final accounts

The final phase of the process was the writing of the final accounts. This is best
described as a craft rather than a science (Stainton Rogers, 1995, p. 186). The
factor analysis produces numbers. It shows which statements provide the basis of
a given factor and which statements contribute to a factors variability. Such
numbers, however, have to be converted into material that reflects the language
of the original opinions expressed in the concourse and the interviews, put
together in such a way as to provide a coherent and readable account. This is the
challenge of the craft.
45
2.9.6 Selection of Participants

The group of participants for this study was chosen from primary and secondary
government and government-aided schools, junior colleges and the Ministry of
Education. It did not include special education schools, the institutes of technical
education and independent schools, as they operated in a separate legal
framework, and might therefore be more appropriately researched separately.
To recapitulate, there were four separate groups of people used in this study and
these corresponded to four separate stages of the research process:
Information gathering - informal conversations with key personnel in the

Ministry of Education, the Attorney Generals chambers, the Singapore
Teachers Union and with several school principals to ascertain the focus of
the research;
Pilot study - an initial sample of six principals participated in a face-to-face

interview. This was preceded by a questionnaire on the background of the
principals and their knowledge of education law. (For a full discussion of the
Pilot Study, see Chapter Six);
In-depth interviews an opportunity sample was used where eight principals

who participated in a law workshop agreed to be interviewed and another two
principals agreed via an email request;
Finally, a Q methodology approach was used to deal with the issue of how
school leaders might deal effectively with legal issues and develop legal risk
strategies (see Research Questions 6 and 7 in Chapter One). As discussed in
the section on Q methodology, the sample, in this method, was the collection
of statements that formed the Q sort. As such, the principals who agreed to
participate in this stage of the research could have been the same ones that
46
were previously used in the earlier stages. For this methodology to be

effective, it is quite satisfactory to have about 30 people to complete the Q
sort, but there are circumstances where even fewer will suffice (Brown,
1980). For this methodology, again an opportunity sample was used. Principals
who were involved in the training of future principals were invited to
participate as part of their duties while others were approached by the
researcher. In the end, a total of 47 principals completed the Q sort.
Subsequent chapters will document Phase 1 of the research strategies Document

Analysis and Legal Research. In the next chapter, Chapter Three, Singapores
response to globalisation, the notion of rights and some legal issues in education
in Singapore will be discussed.
47
CHAPTER THREE
LITERATURE REVIEW
GLOBALISATION, RIGHTS AND ISSUES IN EDUCATION IN SINGAPORE13
3.1
Globalisation And Singapore
Over the last two decades, there has been a proliferation of academic articles
written on globalisation. One author, who has written extensively on this issue, is
Hallak (2000, p. 22) who refers to globalisation as the combination of the free
exchange of goods, services and capital. Watson (2000),though, prefers to term
globalisation as the world primary operational unit of business for example,
transnational corporations operating in many countries under different brand
names or producing components in different countries, and then assembling the
finished product in another country. Ghai (1999), however, views globalisation
differently. He sees it as an economic platform for transnational and large
national corporations to create conditions in which rights become hard to exercise
or protect. He gives the example of large publishing and television companies
having the prerogative to decide, for profit reasons, what books to publish or
programmes to screen. Arguably, this violates the rights of private individuals or
groups, in that they are discriminated against or not given equal opportunities.
Thus, globalization moves from being a simple exchange mechanism to one with
ideological, ethical or moral dimensions.
There are other aspects of globalisation. They include the emergence of

environmental and conservation consciousness, and the new cross-border roles of
13
Some of the material in this chapter was previously published in the International Journal for
Education Law and Policy as Teh, M.K. (2005). Globalisation, Rights and Issues in Education Law in
Singapore. (Volume 1, Issue 1-2).
48
non-governmental organisations like Amnesty International, Greenpeace and the

World Wildlife Fund (Gopinathan, 2001, p. 3). Globalisation has opened up world
markets with the growth of numerous worldwide networks, and technology plays
an important role in peoples lives. People can talk to friends, family, colleagues
or customers at any time and anywhere. With a click of a button, one can access
information about virtually any subject. Globalisation has indeed exerted
considerable influence in society, and together with Western symbols of
dominance, such as McDonalds, television programmes and Coca Cola, the notion
of rights is also exported to many parts of the world, including Singapore. But in
Singapore, the government has always made it clear that the push for a global
free-market and for human rights must be balanced against the nations need to
preserve political and cultural autonomy; that the Western model of democracy is
not appropriate for all; and that nations must be allowed to develop their own
forms of human rights, i.e., which take the cultural context for its expression into
account (Gopinathan, 2001, p. 6). Singapore has taken the view that neoConfucian ideology is the most appropriate alternative framework for socioeconomic and political organisation (Lee, 1994). The style of government for a
long time has therefore been paternalistic, authoritarian, inflexible and even
some would say - rigid. However, the speed at which globalisation is occurring has
caused the government to rethink this position. The government realises that in
order to be economically competitive, the country needs entrepreneurs and
innovators rather than citizens who simply follow instructions and who expect to
be told what and how to do things. This has led to several educational changes
couched in various terms, among them, Thinking Schools, Learning Nation14 and
14
The Thinking Schools, Learning Nation initiative includes the goal of broad-based educational
outcomes, the recognition of the need to cater better to pupils with different talents, aptitudes and
dispositions, the infusion of thinking skills, group and project work in the curriculum, the provision
49
Curriculum Reduction15, aimed at cultivating a citizenry with the ability and

skills to compete globally. One commentator noted:
It is ironic that rote learning and hierarchy in Confucianism and traditional
Asian systems which have been good for a stable government is now less
suitable as creativity and innovativeness imply some chaos and
untidiness. The new world needs political space and democratisation for
individuals and the civil society to participate effectively. (Low, 2002, p.
411).
But although the new world needs new ways, the government is not prepared to
allow the nation to forget its roots or culture. Thinking Schools, Learning Nation
therefore comes together with National Education, which is basically citizenship
education. The emphasis is on equipping our young (from primary to junior college
level) with the knowledge of Singapores unique challenge, and how Singapore
succeeded, despite all the constraints and vulnerability (Gopinathan & Sharpe,
2003). The attempt to create a common, unified culture, which can be passed
from one generation to the next (Lee, 199716) suggests an admission of cultural
anxiety of the state: a fear that globalisation may bring about the erosion of
cultural and national identity (Koh, 2004, p. 340). But as Gopinathan and Sharpe
(2003, p. 2) have so aptly put it, the terms of Singapores survival have changed,
calling into question the relevance of long-standing strategies. Policy makers in
Singapore realise that there is a need to respond adequately and speedily to
of one computer for every two students and broad-based internet access (Sharpe & Gopinathan,
2002:151).
15
The Ministry of Education, following the recommendations of an external review team, has
embarked on a major curriculum reform in the form of curriculum reduction for all subjects and
across all levels. The aim of the reduction is to free up space and time for teachers to promote
thinking and self-directed learning, and a passion for continuous learning since these are vital skills
needed for the new globalised economy (Koh, 2004; Ministry of Education, 1998)
16
From http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/1997/170597.htm.
50
global imperatives, and the examples of education policies discussed above show
an attempt by the state to keep up with the trends of globalisation and yet
maintain national pride and citizen loyalty.
3.2
Globalisation And Rights
It has already been mentioned that the rights movement is one of the products
of globalisation that is exported to many parts of the world, including Singapore. A
classic example of this movement is seen in the influence of the American
television drama The Practice. It was recalled by one legal practitioner17 that
some Singaporeans assert their rights under the First Amendment (which is part of
the American constitution) rather than their rights under the Singapore
Constitution. Singapores local newspapers frequently carry stories about people,
who claim that their rights have been violated the right to privacy, the right to
keep their dogs in their Housing and Development Board flats18, animal rights and
so on. The idea of rights is conveniently used to support anything they think
necessary for dignity and freedom.
In 1993, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the former Prime Minister and the then Senior Minister
of Singapore, expressed his view that in 10 to 20 years time a set of universal
norms on human rights would be reached:
Mainly because of communications. We are seeing each other in our own
sitting rooms, and we are passing judgement on each other. And that is
something new. You are not just passing a message to your representative
at the UN urging a vote of condemnation, which is known only to a few
17
Senior State Counsel during a lecture given to incoming principals at the National Institute of
Education, Nanyang Technological University on 20 August 2004.
18
These flats are built by the Housing and Development Board (HDB) under the public housing
scheme, and flat owners are governed by the rules and regulations imposed by the HDB.
51
leaders or people in the Foreign Ministry. Everybody is watching and

saying, `My God, how can they do this? So this will lead to drastic change.
(Burton, 1993)
Those who blatantly abuse human rights will face criticism and justice eventually.
For example, there is constant and widespread criticism from the international
community of the continued repression against Aung San Suu Kyi by the military in
Burma by holding her under house arrest and detaining her supporters; and
Slobodan Milosevic, former Yugoslavian president, faced justice in the United
Nations (UN) court for crimes against humanity (Parmly, 2001). Even business
and corporations are urged to give globalisation a human face. For example, the
Global Sullivan Principles19 and the UN Global Compact20 encourage corporations,
on a voluntary basis, to recognise international human rights, labour, and
environmental standards (Parmly, 2001, p. 59).
Thus, the 20th century saw the emergence of political globalisation a situation
where different forms of international law and agreements govern issues ranging
from war to crimes against humanity, to environmental issues, to human rights
(Held & McGrew, n.d.). It is admirable that nations collaborate and form
partnerships to deal with these issues, but these must be done in tandem with
educating people about the very same issues. Education can teach universal
values, such as tolerance and human rights, diversity of culture, and respect for
19
A code of conduct which companies can adopt. The main objective is to support human rights,
social justice and economic opportunity. The Global Sullivan Principles was an expansion of the
Sullivan Principles developed by Reverend Leon H. Sullivan in 1977 to end discrimination against
blacks in the workplace in South Africa. Reverend Sullivan created the Global Sullivan Principles of
Social Responsibility in 1997 to expand human rights and economic development to all communities
(see: http://www.globalsullivanprinciple.org).
20
A set of 10 principles which concern human rights, labour and the environment formulated by a
group of business leaders in 1999 (see http://www.unglobalcompact.org).
52
others and the environment. Education can help students to strike a balance
between societys concerns and the rights of the individual. Education can enable
students to acquire relevant knowledge and understand new values, and it can
strengthen the autonomy of the individual so that individuals can catch up with
the evolution of their environment (Hallak, 2000, p. 28). Non-governmental
organisations have an important role to play in strengthening and developing
education, especially for a young nation like Singapore. Two international treaties
that influence the development of education internationally are the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child (1989), and the roles that these two treaties play vis--vis
rights, education and legal issues in education in Singapore will be discussed.
3.3
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Prior to World War II, each country had the prerogative to decide what rights to
grant its citizens. But after the horrific abuse of human rights carried out during
that calamitous period, it was realised that human rights cannot be treated as the
private business of individual countries, but was a common concern for the
international community (Ding, 1998, p.17). To address this issue, the UN, in
1948, adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR
sets out the basic rights and freedoms to which all people (regardless of race,
language, religion, sex and disabilities) are entitled. Although the UDHR was
adopted by the UN in 1948, all member states that are admitted to the UN after
1948 are required to uphold the principles in the Charter of the UN and the UDHR.
Singapore, as a member of the UN21, has reaffirmed and pledged her commitment
to achieving and promoting universal respect for and observance of human rights
21
Singapore became a member of the United Nations on 21 September 1965.
53
and fundamental freedoms22. However, for many decades, Singapore has argued
that her application of political and civil rights must be adapted in order for the
nation to enjoy stability and economic development.
The two international covenants on human rights that act as the enforcement
mechanism to protect basic rights and freedom are the United Nations
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) (ICCPR) and the
United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(1966)(ICESCR). Singapore is not a party to these two covenants and the main
reasons given in the early years of Singapores development were that certain
freedoms may need to be restricted as a short-term measure to eliminate poverty
and to provide the conditions for economic growth. The government also argued
that it aimed to secure peace in the country and would thus curtail civil liberties
only when it had to (Bell, 2000). Indeed, the governments efforts have
transformed Singapore from a fragile, multi-ethnic society into a country with a
developed nation status.
Since the government is managing its population and the economy so efficiently,
why should it change the way it does things? This is a reasonable question, but
with the progress Singapore has made, the economic growth and peace and
security arguments are becoming less tenable. The arguments for not ratifying
the ICCPR and ICESCR have thus recently shifted towards a more cultural
standpoint. Asian leaders have argued that the interests of the community are
more important than those of the individual, and that society should be placed
above the self and issues resolved through consensus rather than contention. This
22
See the UN Conference on Human Rights in Vienna 1993 and the United Nations Millennium
Declaration adopted by the General Assembly on 8 September 2000.
54
is the so-called Asian Culture (Little, n.d; Oh, n.d.). But with the global flow of
migrant workers in Singapore, wouldnt this Asian Culture be complicated by
the formation of new diasporic communities and new ethnicities? (Koh, 2004, p.
340); and wouldnt individuals in these communities want to know how the law
can protect their individual rights?
Although Singapore is not a signatory to the ICCPR and ICESCR, its actions
regarding human rights are still judged against the UDHR, which is the only
international standard against which the observance of human rights is
measured23. In fact, the UDHR has laid the foundation for more than 80
conventions and declarations on human rights, of which Singapore has acceded to
two the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and the
United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women (1979) (Samydorai, 2001).
The Singapore Constitution provides for freedom of speech, but in practice this
freedom is restricted by an authoritarian style of government. The perceived
government intimidation and pressure to conform often result in self-censorship
among the people and even journalists (U.S. Department of State, 2004). The
government often makes reference to out-of-bounds markers or issues.
However, it is hoped that there has been a shift toward greater tolerance for
openness and free speech. For example, in 2001, the government permitted
23
The UDHR is known and accepted as authorities both in countries that became parties to the ICCPR
and ICESCR and in those that did not ratify or accede to either. Because of its worldwide recognition
under the domestic law of many countries, the UDHR has become part of the customary
international law (OHCHR, n.d.). It is also treated as an authoritative interpretation of the human
rights provision in the UN Charter (Ding, 1998). As customary international law binds all states
without exceptions and regardless of consent, the principles in the UDHR, arguably, must be obeyed
by all member states (Tay, 1996).
55
international human rights organisations24 to observe the opposition politician JB

Jeyaretnams bankruptcy appeal. In 2003, two representatives from the Lawyers
Committee for Human Rights were allowed to attend another opposition politician
Chee Soon Juans appeal of a summary judgment awarded against him in
defamation suits brought by the former Prime Minister and then Senior Minister of
Singapore (U.S. Department of State, 2004).
The human rights movement has gained momentum internationally. In

participating in the Vienna Declaration of 1993 and the UN Millennium
Declaration, Singapore is basically agreeing that human rights are interrelated and
indivisible, and that they comprise civil, political, economic, social and cultural
rights. Thus, the defence of the right to development and cultural differences
in supporting the divergence in the application of human rights in Singapore may
have to be re-examined in the light of the changes taking place in Singapore and
globally. Take the example of the right to chew gum. The sale and import of
chewing gum has been banned in Singapore since 1992. But Singapore in 2004
permitted medicinal and dental gum products to be sold in pharmacies as
health products or as theraupeutic preparations that aid smokers (Singapore
Loosens, 2004). What is the real reason? One commentator perceives that it is
globalisation, in the form of a Free Trade Agreement, which has compelled even a
country like Singapore to back away from national values (Nickel, 2003).
In the age of rights and with the advance of internet technology, the people of
Singapore are becoming more aware of human rights issues. Communications
media and technology are now so decentralised that it is near impossible to keep
24
Representatives from Amnesty International and the Lawyers Rights Watch in Canada.
56
foreign ideas away from local eyes and ears. The interactions across state borders
by both governments and private citizens have markedly increased (Spickard,
1999). As pointed out as early as 1996 by a Singapore lawyer25, Singapore is clearly
interconnected with the rest of the world through trade, industry, media, travel
and even education. He went on to say, A nations conduct as regards its citizens
is no longer purely a matter of its internal laws; it is the legitimate subject of
international concern (Tay, 1996, p. 750). In the next section, Singapores
response to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and
the legal implications the Convention presents for schools in Singapore will be
examined.
3.4
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
Singapore acceded to the CRC on 2 October 199526 and it came into force in
Singapore on 4 November 1995. As a party to the CRC, Singapore is required to
submit an initial report on measures adopted, which gave effect to the rights
provided for in the CRC. A progress report must be made on the enjoyment of
those rights within two years of the CRC coming into force and thereafter every
five years (Article 44, CRC).
Although the CRC itself cannot be invoked before the courts of Singapore, it is
implemented in Singapore through a number of statutes and their subsidiary
legislation. They include the Children and Young Persons Act (Cap. 38, 1993), the
Womens Charter (Cap. 353, 1961), the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68, 1955),
25
Simon SC Tay LL.B Hons (National University of Singapore) LL.M (Harvard), who teaches
international law at the National University of Singapore.
26
Singapore entered some declarations and reservations on various articles of the CRC on its
accession to the CRC. In the area of education, one of the declarations permits the judicious
application of corporal punishment in the best interest of the child.
57
the Penal Code (Cap. 224, 1872), the Adoption of Children Act (Cap. 4, 1939), the
Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap. 122, 1935) and the Compulsory Education Act
(Cap. 51, 2003).
Singapores initial report on the CRC was submitted in April 2002 and the UN
Committee on the Rights of the Child (the Committee) released its comments on
this report in October 2003. The Committee was of the view that Singapore had
not fully reflected all the principles and provisions of the CRC in her domestic
legislation:
The Committee recommends that the State party undertake a
comprehensive review of its legislation and take all necessary measures to
ensure its conformity with the principles and provisions of the Convention
(Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2003a:2).
The Committee also criticised the Singapore government for not setting up an
independent mechanism with authority and mandate to monitor and evaluate
the countrys implementation and progress of the CRC. The Committee
encourages the State party to establish an independent and effective
mechanism, in accordance with the Principles relating to the status of
national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights,
which is provided with adequate human and financial resources and easily
accessible to children and which monitors the implementation of the
Convention, deals with complaints from children in a child-sensitive and
expeditious manner, and provides remedies for violations of their rights
under the Convention (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2003a:3).
The Committee observed the presence of discrimination against persons with

disabilities, the inadequate provision of avenues for children to express their
58
views in all matters affecting them, the use of corporal punishment as a form of
discipline, the absence of legislation to require social workers, teachers and
medical personnel to report suspected cases of child abuse, and the lack of human
rights education in schools and for the public (Committee on the Rights of the
Child, 2003a).
In setting these principal subjects of concern, the Committee also spelt out its
recommendations27. To show Singapores commitment to the CRC, the government
would have to consider carefully the recommendations and examine its progress
and implementation of the CRC before the second and third periodic reports were
due in 200728.
Singapore does not have a strong rights culture, and the government does not like
formal legal structures to regulate such issues, as can be seen in the lack of
legislation in this area.
However, by acceding to the CRC, Singapore has opened itself up to international

scrutiny and is obliged to make all reports on its progress on the CRC public.
Singapore, in practice, does not show any gross or widespread abuses of the rights
of the people of Singapore. But as the rights culture continues to grow and
people become more educated about human rights, they will inevitably demand
to be heard. Schools will similarly expect such demands from well-educated and
27
For the full report, refer to United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989. Document
No. CRC/C/15/Add.220 dated 27 October 2003.
28
The Committee has allowed, as an exceptional measure, Singapore to submit its second and third
periodic reports in one consolidated report by 3 November 2007, the date on which the third report
is due. This is to enable Singapore to catch up with its reporting obligations.
59
well-informed parents, and school leaders will have to be well-prepared to meet

the challenges that these sets of stakeholders will pose to them.
3.5
CRC and the Schools
It was noted by Russo and Stewart (2001) that in many common law countries,
there has been an increase in the legal processes to guide policies, practices and
decision-making in all educational institutions, in particular, schools. Apart from
the UDHR, the CRC also plays an important role in promoting this increase. Many
articles in the CRC that apply to schools require educators to formulate and
implement policies that reflect the principles in the CRC. There are many articles
in the CRC that impact on education. Some of the significant articles in the CRC
are considered below.
Article 3 states that in

all actions concerning childrenthe best interests of the child shall be a
primary consideration,institutionsresponsible for the care or protection
of children shall conform with the standards established by competent
authorities, particularly in the area of safetyas well as competent
supervision.
To promote the best interests of the child, Article 12 states that a child who is
capable of forming his or her own views (is entitled)to express those views freely
in all matters affecting them (italics mine). Article 19 reinforces the importance
of protecting the physical welfare of children by requiring parties to the CRC to
take all appropriate measures to protect children from violence, injury or abuse,
maltreatment or exploitation and to undertake prevention and support programs.
Article 23 recognises the needs of children with physical and/or intellectual
60
disabilities and Article 28 provides that primary education must be made

compulsory and available free to all. How, then, has Singapore responded to the
principles of the CRC when compared with other countries?
3.5.1 Compulsory Education

In acceding to the CRC, Singapore has expressly reserved the right not to make
primary education compulsory, the reason being such a measure is unnecessary in
our social context where in practice virtually all children attend primary school
(United Nations Treaty Collection, 2001). But with the governments rhetoric
indicating that every Singaporean counts, and with Singapore being a progressive
country, it would have been an anomaly had education not been made compulsory
in Singapore.
Primary education was eventually made compulsory in 2003 but, as a speaker in

Parliament correctly said, six years of primary level education will not adequately
prepare a person to meet even the most basic challenges of a knowledge-based
and globalised economy (Parliamentary Debates, 2000, p. 851). Most countries
referred to later on in Chapter Five have made education compulsory at least for
primary and secondary schools, with England and some states in Canada requiring
parents to register their children in schools at pre-school level. The definition of a
child in CRC is one that is below the age of eighteen years (Article 1).
Although the CRC requires State Parties to make primary education compulsory
and available free to all (Article 28), some might argue that the government
should nevertheless consider the spirit of the CRC when setting the criteria for
compulsory education in Singapore, and follow the example of other developed
61
countries in ensuring a minimum of at least 9 to 10 years of compulsory education

so as to more adequately prepare young people for the future.
3.5.2 Corporal Punishment

Singapore has declared that a childs rights, as defined in Article 19 of the CRC, do
not prohibit the judicious application of corporal punishment in the best interest
of the child (United Nations Treaty Collection, 2001). This is contrary to a
fundamental principle in Article 19 that a child should be protected from all forms
of violence and, therefore, non-violent forms of discipline should be adopted for
school discipline. However, as will be seen from the overview of education law in
the developed countries in Chapter Five later, corporal punishment is not
completely banned. For example, in some states in the USA, the decision as to
whether children or youths should be physically punished is a policy question left
for educators to decide (Fischer, Schimmel, Stellman & Cynthia, 2003). In
Australia, corporal punishment is prohibited in all state schools either by
regulations or policy although in some states, it is still allowed in private schools
(Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, n.d.). In Canada,
most school districts disallow the use of physical discipline (Anderson & Fraser,
2002), but, the Criminal Code of Canada provides a defence for teachers who do
mete out corporal punishment. However, in January 2004, the Supreme Court of
Canada removed this defence. Subsequently, teachers are no longer allowed to
administer corporal punishment but are only permitted to use physical force to
remove a student or prevent immediate threats of harm to person or property
(The Centre for Effective Discipline, n.d.). In England, corporal punishment is
banned in schools on the ground that this policy preserves the human dignity of a
child, and respects parents basic human right to ensure that their children are
62
educated in a way that is not offensive to them (Harris, 2002; The Heads Legal
Guide, Croner, 1999). Similarly, in New Zealand, corporal punishment is
prohibited in schools pursuant to the Education Act (1989) (amended 2007).
The Committee on the Rights of the Child (2003a) recommends that Singapore
amends its legislation to prohibit corporal punishment in the home and in schools.
The government has not followed up on the recommendation, but the Ministry of
Education (MOE) has given broad guidelines to school principals on managing
student discipline. On the use of corporal punishment, very specific guidelines are
given (Ministry of Education, 2000b; Education (Schools) Regulations, Education
Act [Cap. 87, (1957]). The law of tort also provides students with legal redress
should any corporal punishment be excessive and unreasonable.
Asians believe that the age of a person equates with maturity and knowledge, and
they are respected for these attributes; such respect is often given according to
the hierarchical order (Sandhu, 1997). Besides age, official position is also
regarded as a form of social status. Students are expected to treat teachers with
respect as teachers are deemed to be experienced and educated persons, who are
knowledgeable enough to deal with schooling issues and even personal problems
(House & Pinyuchon, 1998). In Singapore, there is still a strong culture of respect
for the authority of parents and teachers. This was seen in the public outcry
following the stepping-down of a secondary school principal after he hit a female
student with a book29. It could be argued that, with MOEs guidelines on corporal
punishment, the remedy in common law for abuse, and a culture of respect for
29
The principal of Nan Chiau High, while reprimanding the student with disciplinary problems, lost
his temper when she lied to him, and hit her with a soft-cover book. The Principals Handbook and
the Education (Schools) Regulations expressly prohibit any form of corporal punishment to be
administered on a girl. The majority of the public felt that even if the principals action was wrong,
he had acted with good intentions and the MOE should not have allowed him to step-down.
63
authority, there may not be a need for Singapore to withdraw its declaration on
corporal punishment. Nevertheless, the international pressure to promote rights
in education is evident and the Minister of State for Education, Mr Chan Soo Sen,
acknowledged that Singapore may have to move with the times and eventually
review her approach to caning and spanking (Committee on the Rights of the
Child, 2003b, p. 11).
3.5.3 Safety in Schools

Each child is expected to be educated in a safe school environment, and this
expectation is evident in the articles declared in the CRC. The notion of the best
interests of the child is interpreted very strictly when determining the rights of
the child in the education context. The scope of the duty of care of educators in
respect of the childs safety in school includes not only the physical safety but
also the psychological safety of the child (De Waal, 2002). Safety in schools
encompasses a whole range of related issues. They involve negligence resulting in
injury, violence in schools by students, peer harassment in the form of bullying,
sexual misconduct by teachers, and child abuse of students by care-givers at home
or even in boarding schools. Many countries have some form of legislation to
safeguard the physical welfare of students. Such legislation generally imposes on
education authorities, private school proprietors, senior post holders in schools
and all teachers a duty to take care of the health, safety and welfare of the
teachers and students in schools. A more complex duty of care issue that has
entered the education scene is that of bullying that occurs on school premises.
Schools have had to deal with claims for physical or psychological harm for their
failure to prevent bullying.
64
In Singapore, there is no specific legislation that deals with the health, safety and
welfare of students in schools. However, the common law of negligence and
occupiers liability, combined with the numerous guidelines in the Principals
Handbook on safety, provide at least some guidance on the standard of care
required by educators. Examples of guidelines in the Principals Handbook are
guidelines on: Safety and Health Precautions in School Tuckshops, Safety
Precautions in Science Laboratories, Technical Workshops, Computer and Home
Economics Rooms, Safety Precautions in Physical Education (PE) lessons/Trim
and Fit (TAF) Programme/National Physical Fitness Award (NAPFA) Test, Safety
Precautions for Pupils Outside School, and Safety Precautions on the Air Rifle
Range (B361, Ministry of Education, 2000b). While these guidelines may offer
some assistance in the planning and conducting of school activities in a safe
manner, they do not replace the corresponding legal responsibilities of those in
authority and the need for educating principals and teachers about the rights of
students in law.
Most countries have legislation protecting children from abuse. Singapore has
similar legislation reflected in the Children and Young Persons Act (Cap. 38,
1993), but as pointed out by the Committee on the Rights of the Child, there is no
legal requirement for teachers to report suspected cases of child abuse. One may
argue that teachers have a moral duty to act on evidence or suspicion of such
cases, but even if only one teacher fails to exercise this moral duty, it is one too
many. The Principals Handbook encourages schools to report cases of child abuse,
neglect and ill treatment to the Family and Women's Welfare Branch and the
Ministry of Community Development and Sports (B332, Ministry of Education,
2000b). However, no guidance is given on the various symptoms of abuse and
65
neglect and the correct approach to reporting ones suspicions. Article 19(2) of
the CRC requires state parties to provide effective procedures for identifying and
reporting abuse and neglect. A police spokesman said in a newspaper report (Tan,
2004) that nine out of 10 rape victims in 2004 knew their attackers, many of whom
were family or friends. In the same report, the chairman of the Women and Safety
Committee at the Association of Women for Action and Research (Singapore) said,
Worldwide statistics show nine out of every 10 rape cases go unreported. If
Singapore is to take her commitment to promoting the best interests of the
child seriously, the government should provide at least more effective
procedures, if not appropriate legislation, to fulfil the requirements in Article
19(2).
In early 2004, there were newspaper reports detailing the sexual misconduct of
two male teachers in Singapore30. These teachers were convicted and punished
under the law. Unlike the English and Canadian jurisdictions, where there is
specific legislation explaining what constitutes sexual offences by teachers,
Singapores law simply states that it is an offence for a person to have carnal
connection with any girl below the age of 16 years except by way of marriage
(Section 140(i) Womens Charter, [Cap. 353, 1961]). In terms of guidelines, the
MOE expresses teachers misconduct as conduct prejudicial to good order or
discipline or immoral behaviour, among other examples (Ministry of Education,
2002, p. 39). In England, teachers and other school staff who have any sexual
activity with someone below 18 years of age commit the offence of abuse of
30
In the first case, a male teacher was jailed for seven years for having sex 18 times with his 14 year
old student. In the second case, a married teacher was jailed for 16 months after pleading guilty to
having oral sex with his 14-year-old former student. Under the Penal code (Cap. 224, 1872), it is a
criminal offence both to have carnal connections with a girl under the age of 16 and to perform oral
sex (Section 140(i) Womens Charter (Cap. 353, 1961) and Section 377 Penal Code [Cap. 224, 1872]).
66
trust (Section 3, Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act (2000). Similarly, the law in
Canada makes it a criminal offence for a person who is in the position of trust or
authority to (for a sexual purpose) touch any part of the body of a young person
who is below 18 years of age (Section 153, Criminal Code of Canada, Chapter 46).
It may be argued that it is time for Singapore to review its law and policies in this
area, or at least to implement a code of ethics to help principals and teachers
know, in the eyes of the teaching profession, what constitutes sexual misconduct
or sexual offence, and when and how to report suspicions of such sexual
misconduct or offence by teachers. In the meantime, we have to rely on each
individuals moral conviction, and some convictions may fall way below generally
accepted norms.
3.5.4 Special Education

Special education (SPED) schools are the main providers of education for
children with disabilities in Singapore. As at January 2006, other than three other
private centres31, there are 21 SPED schools run by Voluntary Welfare
Organisations (which receive funding from the Ministry of Education (MOE) and
the National Council of Social Services). Although SPED schools are the ones
mainly responsible for the education of children with disabilities, the policy of
MOE is to allow pupils who are successful in the Primary School Leaving
Examination32 to leave SPED schools to continue education in mainstream
secondary schools (Ministry of Education (Singapore), n.d.).
31
These three centres are the Genesis School for Special Education and Kits4Kids Special School
which are commercially run centres, and the Dover Court Preparatory School which is a foreign
system school with a special education department.
32
The Primary School Leaving Examination is a placement examination taken in Primary Six. The
results will determine whether students go on to secondary schools to complete an additional four to
five years of secondary education.
67
The current policy appears to be in line with the Report of the Advisory Council
on the Disabled: Opportunities for the Disabled stating that whenever
appropriate and feasible, special education should be provided within the regular
education system. A child should only be placed in a special school if he cannot be
well educated in a regular school (Lim & Tan, 2001; 37-38). A survey of the
improvements and modifications made to the physical environment of various
schools further suggests that considerable efforts have been made to support the
notion of inclusive education. However, as pointed out by Lim and Tan (2001),
the system of inclusive education in Singapore is not without tensions and
limitations. The following paragraphs will now look at three such limitations.
First, although initial teacher training does include reference to disabilities, the
emphasis is on ensuring that trainee teachers master basic skills in teaching and
learning. They are not trained with sufficient skills, knowledge or confidence to
integrate students with disabilities in their classes. This lack of training further
translates into regular teachers being unable to identify special needs pupils other
than those with physical or sensory disability.
Another limitation is one where education is increasingly becoming marketbased and where competition and standards are vital to a schools survival. In
such an environment, schools are compelled to compete with one another, and
one way is to recruit the best cohort of students so that the schools performance
can be boosted. Naturally, students with disabilities, especially those that have
learning difficulties, are deemed to be less desirable (Lim & Tan, 2001). Although
there is no evidence that principals reject students with learning difficulties at
the outset, informal conversations with principals reveal that when special needs
68
students (for example, those that are autistic or who suffer from Attention
Deficiency Hyperactive Disorder) become too disruptive, principals will strongly
encourage parents to withdraw their child from their school and place him or her
in a SPED school. Unlike the United States, England and other commonwealth
countries, the concept of inclusion is not a right in Singapore. In fact, the
Compulsory Education Act (Cap. 51, 2003) allows children with special needs or
learning disabilities to be exempted from its provisions. The government is of the
view that enforcement of compulsory education on parents of children with
learning disabilities will be unduly harsh on them.
Although efforts have been made to enhance opportunities for inclusive

education, the third limitation is seen in the research carried out by Rao, Lim and
Nam (2001), which indicates that there is still a lack of resources in terms of
school personnel, flexible curriculum and suitable physical setting in the
classrooms.
Mr Stephen Woodhouse, the Independent Consultant with experience in the work

of the UN and UNICEF, in a keynote address on The Status of Children in
Singapore Regional and Global Benchmarks, congratulated Singapore on its
excellent efforts in promoting childrens welfare in a rapidly changing world
(Woodhouse, 2004, p.2). One of the ways in which Singapore promotes the welfare
of children with disabilities is through integration of these children into the
mainstream schools. But while this may look good on the surface, the underlying
problems faced by schools and parents, as discussed briefly above, remain largely
unresolved. The governments objective of excluding special needs children from
the compulsory education legislation is to allow special needs children to attend
69
SPED schools and learn at their own pace (Ministry of Education, 2000a). However,
there are insufficient SPED schools to meet the demand33. Since special needs
children are exempted from the Compulsory Education Act (Cap. 51, 2003), some
may end up not being in school at all.
Article 23 of the CRC specifically refers to the right of a mentally or physically

disabled child to enjoy a full and decent life, and this necessarily includes
effective access to and receipt of education. From the available literature and
newspaper reports in Singapore, there appears to be little evidence to show that,
in practice, the best interest principle is applied to children with disabilities.
One parent commented,
parents with special-needs children are faced with the dilemma of not
knowing where to place their children at school-entry age. The present
education system does not cater to the slower learners. At the same time,
the parents are not sure the existing physical environment of special
primary schools is conducive to learning (Chua, 2003, p.25).
Despite the moves to integrate children with special needs into mainstream
schools and the steps taken to enhance the support for these children, there has
been no attempt to formalise this process into the education legislation or at least
to give clearer guidelines on placement and special educational provision. As
mentioned above, the government argued that, if compulsory education were to
include education in SPED schools, the enforcement of compulsory education may
be unduly harsh on the parents of children with special needs. But some parents
do not send their children to SPED schools because of the costs. This can be
33
The Straits Times, 22 March 2003 there is a huge demand for places in special needs schools with
programmes for autistic children. More teachers are being trained so that by 2006, 400 more autistic
children may benefit.
70
overcome by making education at SPED schools free for such children. The
principal objective of introducing compulsory education is to ensure that every
child is given the opportunity to maximise his or her potential. If a child with
special needs cannot attend a mainstream school, then he or she should be sent to
a SPED school as part of the requirement of compulsory education. Perhaps there
are lessons that can be learnt from the experience of special educational needs in
other developed countries in this regard, and measures adopted and implemented
to give disabled children in Singapore what they rightly deserve - the best
opportunity to learn.
3.5.5 Privacy
Article 16 of the CRC states, No child shall be subject to arbitrary or unlawful
interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to
unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation, and, the child has the
right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. In short,
every child has the right to privacy. But Singapore does not have any general laws
on privacy, and there are no cases in Singapore that have recognised a legally
enforceable right to privacy per se. The laws pertaining to privacy and personality
are mostly piecemeal and are to be derived mainly from various branches of the
law (Hwang & Chan, 2001, p. 355)34. Schools collect and maintain a great deal of
information about students and their families, much of which is personal,
confidential or sensitive in nature. They are also constantly faced with requests
for some of that information, perhaps by solicitors or other private agencies. Do
schools have a duty to protect students personal information? Under the common
34
Examples of some of the relevant laws are the Copyright Act (Cp. 63, 1987), the Computer Misuse
Act (Cap. 50A, 1993), the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap. 184, 1906),
the Telecommunications Act (Cap. 323, 1999), the Vandalism Act (Cap. 341, 1966) and various
section of the Penal Code (Cap. 224, 1872).
71
law, there is a branch of law known as the law of confidentiality, which may be
used to protect confidential information concerning a person or his activities, and
it is this branch of law that may protect a students right to privacy (X Pte Ltd v.
CDE [1992]35). Article 16 above also reminds us that teachers and school
administrators may have an obligation to ensure that information on a student is
not misused so that there is potential for breach of confidence or defamation.
3.6
Conclusion
Seymour Martin Lipset (1980), in his book entitled Political Man, said that the
more the economy grows, the more likely it is that stable democratic forms of
politics will emerge. In a post-industrial economy and in a shifting world, where
the government promotes creativity, innovation and enterprise, Singapore needs
an even more democratic environment, giving relative freedom to individuals to
experiment, to freely express themselves, and to take risks as entrepreneurs in
order to maintain or extend the nations competitive edge over other rich
countries (Spickard, 1999; Bell, 2000). One would argue that this idea of
individualism supports the ideals of human rights, and an authoritarian model of
governance is incompatible with a human rights framework.
The tenor of the rhetoric from government ministers in past years has been that
Singapore needs to be a more open society. The third Prime Minister of Singapore,
Mr Lee Hsien Loong36, in his inaugural speech spelt out his vision for Singapore to
35
In this case, the defendant claimed that under Article 14 of the Constitution of Singapore, she was
entitled to freedom of speech and expression, thus she was free to divulge the sex life of her ex
employer. The plaintiff successfully argued that Article 14 was subject to the existence of the
equitable duty of confidence in Singapore.
36
Mr Lee Hsien Loong was sworn in as the third Prime Minister of Singapore on 12 August 2004.
72
be an open and inclusive society, which is a reiteration of the theme in his

speech given at the Harvard Clubs 35th anniversary dinner on 6 January 2004,
'I have no doubt that our society must open up further. The growing
participation and diversity over the last two decades have been vital
pluses for Singapore, enabling us to adapt to changing conditions, and to
the needs and expectations of a new generation (Chua, 2004, p.1).'
By encouraging participation in decision making, the government is enabling

people to own their choices and to contribute to the vision and growth of the
nation. By encouraging openness and diversity, and by promoting, respecting and
observing universal human rights and fundamental freedoms in the form of the
UDHR and the CRC, each new generation will only develop greater respect for
rights in the society. In fact, the education system in Singapore should teach
children what their rights are (for example, freedom of association, freedom of
speech, the right to primary education) and specify the object of each right. In
teaching children their rights, children will also learn about their corresponding
responsibilities.
This chapter has touched briefly on globalisation trends and international trends
on human rights and their impact on education policies in Singapore. But more
importantly, in examining the CRC vis--vis schools, it emphasises the importance
of legal issues for schools in Singapore. As we look at other countries, we can see
things happening that appear to parallel developments in Singapore. For example,
there is a growing concern abroad about corporal punishment, negligence in
schools, sexual assaults by teachers and bullying by students. As seen earlier,
these are issues that have also surfaced in Singapore (Teh, Stott & Zuzarte, 2004).
73
In the preceding pages and chapters, it was observed that the rights culture is
indeed growing, and people, including students and teachers, are demanding to be
heard and be treated fairly. The then Singapore Teachers Unions (STU)
General Secretary, Mr Swithun Lowe, observed a changing scenario, where
more educated parents are ready to take teachers to task for problems between
teachers and their children, and he stated that STU was prepared to defend
members who are sued or unreasonably abused by parents in the course of their
duties (Sim, 2004, pp. 2-3).
Two commentators said that educators (education professors, superintendents,

principals and teachers) need to realise that the significance of school law
presents a unique intellectual challenge to prepare them (educators) to be more
proactive (rather than reactive) in meeting the needs of staff, parents, students
and the community (Russo & Stewart, 2001, p. 23). Indeed, education and the
law is an emerging area of nascent importance in Singapore. If these
commentators are right, then it will not be adequate for educators simply to
facilitate an open and inclusive society that can meet the demands of global
interactions. It will also be incumbent on educators to recognise and have a broad
understanding of the issues and legal concepts in education law to meet this
unique intellectual challenge in their day-to-day, real life situations.
Although there is no single piece of legislation that addresses all the rights of a
child as set out in the CRC, a childs rights in Singapore are nevertheless reflected
in various statutes and their subsidiary legislation. In recognising the rights of the
child in all these statutes, the best interests of the child is always of paramount
importance. But for teachers, acting in the best interests of the child may not be
74
as simple as it sounds. Children today come to school with all kinds of different
needs, many which are emotional, rather than physical needs. Sometimes, acting
in the best interest of the child means requiring a teacher to gather information
on what happens to a child outside the classroom, and taking appropriate action;
for example, reporting an abusive parent to the relevant authorities or dealing
firmly with a school bully. Undoubtedly, teachers jobs are very stressful, for very
often, their role as a teacher is not confined to teaching alone, but they are also
involved as counsellors, social workers and sometimes mediators, in addition to
the various administrative roles demanded of them. Nevertheless, as the rights
culture continues to manifest itself, teachers will find themselves inexorably
drawn into yet another area of involvement education and the law. The
illustrations given earlier are just two examples of legal issues37 that teachers will
have to grapple with, and as seen in earlier chapters, there will be many other
legal issues that will eventually confront teachers in their daily duties.
In highlighting some of the important provisions of the CRC as they relate to

schools and education in Singapore, this study has shown that a better and more
comprehensive legislative framework is needed to respond to the objectives of the
Convention. But its more than having legislation in place. Educators too have a
duty to know about legal rights and responsibilities and educate those in the
school and community so that these objectives can be met. It is a collective effort
on the part of the government and educators. Like it or not, societies are caught
up in the zeitgeist of globalisation and rights, and if Singapore recognises the
importance of meeting international standards in this respect, then both the
government and the people on the ground will have to press on with reforms and
37
The first example concerns possible child abuse and the reporting procedures under the Children
and Young Persons Act (Cap. 38, 1993) and the second example deals with the common law duty of
care to prevent a child from suffering physical or psychological harm while in school.
75
changes in education and law to gain Singapore the recognition and acceptance
that she rightly deserves.
In the next chapter, some attention will be given to the more important legal
concepts pertaining to legal issues in education in Singapore and how they might
have an impact on schools.
76
CHAPTER FOUR
AN OVERVIEW OF AREAS OF LAW WHICH HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON
EDUCATION
4.1
Introduction
The study of law is an extensive field, and it is impossible in a short chapter like
this to set out comprehensively details of the various disciplines of law that
contribute to the field of Education and the Law. The legal concepts discussed
here are therefore by no means exhaustive, but they represent some of the more
significant concepts associated with this study, and are placed here for the reader
who may not have a legal background.
4.2
Schools and the Law
The law refers to, first, a system of rules or legislation developed by a

government: in other words, statutory law created by the enactment of
legislatures; and, second, the common law, which comprises the body of those
principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons
and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of
immemorial antiquity (Black, 1990). Where statutory law on a particular issue is
not available or where the law is not available in a precisely organised way,
common law enters the scene to make law or interpret the unclear statute
law. According to Menacker (1987), common law is found in court opinions
through the years, as judges have resolved controversies and recorded their
reasoning. This part of the law frequently gives operational meaning to written
regulations and comes into play when written rules do not exist on any given
point. This so-called legal relationship of persons to one another in society
becomes the accepted standard or standards of conduct (common law).
77
There are many aspects of law affecting public schools. Schools function in a
complex legal environment and there is a variety of legal issues that confront the
lives of teachers, administrators, parents and students on a daily basis. The
combination of both legislative and common law that impacts school policies and
practices are what academics and lawyers in the USA term School Law or
Education Law and elsewhere refer to as Schools or Education and the Law.
In the following paragraphs, an overview of the areas of law pertaining to this

study will be examined.
4.3
The Tort of Negligence
Negligence is classified under the law of torts and it is the most wide-ranging
among the numerous torts. In order to establish the tort of negligence, a plaintiff
must establish the following four elements.
4.3.1 Duty of Care
Principals and teachers are entrusted with the heavy responsibility of caring for
large numbers of young children. Owing to the nature of their work, special duties
of care are imposed on them. A duty of care may arise in three ways:
(i) A duty not to act in a certain way; for example, a physical education teacher
has a duty not to leave a gymnastics class unattended;
(ii) a duty to perform a job with a certain degree of skill and care; for example,
teachers have to ensure that the school syllabus is taught correctly; and
(iii) a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that some purposes or a goal is
achieved; for example, if a school is to operate as a centre of teaching and
78
learning, it has to take steps to ensure that the school is reasonably safe for
that purpose (McBride & Bagshaw, 2000-2001).
It is reasonably foreseeable that the breach of the duty in any of the three ways
described above will result in some form of harm. This breach of duty amounts to
negligence. Most people, at some point in their lives, have probably indulged in
some form of negligent act, but fortunately for them, legal liability for negligence
only arises when all of these elements are established:
(i) a duty of care is owed to the plaintiff and it is reasonably foreseeable that
harm will result if there is a breach;
(ii) breach of the standard of care required;
(iii) damage or injury results from the breach;
(iv) the damage or injury was reasonably foreseeable; and
(v) the negligent act was the cause of the damage or injury.
4.3.2 Duty of Care when is it owed?

The element of duty of care is a threshold requirement that must be established
before a plaintiff can proceed with a negligence claim. In determining who is
owed a duty of care, the often cited words of Lord Atkin in Donoghue v.
Stephenson (1932) provide the answer:
You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can
reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who then
in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so
closely and directly affected by my acts that I ought reasonably to have
them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my
mind to the acts or omissions which are called into question.
79
The notion that a duty of care exists between a teacher or school and a student
whenever the former has care or custody of the student has been recognised since
the 1893 English case of William v. Eady where Lord Esher stated that the
schoolmaster was bound to take such care of his boys as a careful father would
take of his boys.
In the English case of Norman v. Inner London Education Authority (1974), an

unlabelled beaker of sulphuric acid was left on the bench in the chemistry
laboratory in the teachers absence. A boy filled a syringe from the beaker and
squirted it in another boys eye. It is reasonably foreseeable that by leaving a
dangerous substance around, someone may get hurt if the substance is improperly
used. The teachers failure to give a specific warning of the danger involved was
thus a departure from the standard of care required of him. The elements of
negligence were established: duty of care, breach of standard of care, and a
resultant foreseeable injury. The injury was attributed to the teachers actions
and the school was held vicariously liable.
4.3.3 The Standard of Care

The earliest common law description of the standard of care required of teachers
is that by Lord Esher MR in the case of William v. Eady referred to above. The
standard of care required of teachers is that of a careful parent38. Knowing the
38
This has become a fairly controversial issue since the House of Lords decision in Gillick v. West
Norfolk and Wishech Area Health Authority and the Department of Health and Social Security
(1985). The main question in the appeal was whether a doctor could lawfully prescribe contraception
for a girl under 16 years old, without the consent of her parents. The Health Departments guideline
had implied that in exceptional cases, a doctor could do so. Mrs Gillick applied for a declaration
that the guidance was unlawful. By a majority decision, the House of Lords held that the parental
right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of sixteen will have medical
treatment terminates if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to
understand fully what is proposed (Lord Scarman). This decision has huge implications for schools in
80
ordinary nature of children, their tendency to do mischievous acts and their

propensity to meddle with anything that comes in their way, if a father has
phosphorous in the house, being a careful father, he would not leave the
phosphorous in a place where his child could reach it. In other words, while a
child is at school, each teacher acts in loco parentis (in place of the parents) and
has to adopt the standards which would be expected of the reasonable caring
parent (parenthesis mine) (Wenham, 1999, p. 366).
One of the criteria looked at by the courts when determining whether there is a
breach of the standard of care is that of the adequacy of supervision. Lord
Denning in the case of Ward v. Hertfordshire County Council (1970) made the
comment that it was impossible to supervise children to the extent that they
never fall down and hurt themselves. It is therefore important for schools to
ensure that they provide adequate although not constant supervision while their
children are in the school premises (emphasis mine).
4.3.4 Foreseeability of Harm

A defence that is available to a defendant in a negligence suit is that the accident
is not foreseeable by any reasonably competent and prudent school or teacher
(Palfreyman, 2001, p. 232). In the case of Government of Malaysia & Ors v. Jumat
Bin Mahmud & Anor (1977), a student lost his eye when it came into contact with
a sharp end of a pencil that another student was holding. The other student had
pricked the victims thigh with a pin, causing the victim to receive a shock and
thereby to turn directly into the sharp pencil. The victim and his parent alleged
that the teacher was negligent by not exercising adequate supervision. The trial
that school nurses can potentially consider providing contraceptive treatment to young students
under 16 based on the Gillick competency guidelines without parental permission.
81
judge gave judgment to the child, but, on appeal, the Court of Appeal found that
there was no evidence to show that the class was inadequately supervised. Even if
the teacher was negligent, it was not reasonably foreseeable that an injury of this
nature would result from the teachers wrongful act.
The word foreseeable is used objectively. Lord Wright in the English case of
Wray v. Essex County Council (1936) made that clear when he said the mere fact
that one did not foresee the harm would not be an excuse if it was something that
a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have foreseen.
4.3.5 Causation
Causation is usually the most complex issue to be decided by the court. On the
evidence before him, a judge has to determine whether it is logical and
reasonable to infer that what the teacher did or should not have done, in his or
her performance of duty, caused the injury which the student complains of the
notion of causal connection. In other words, was the teachers negligence the
cause of the accident? In Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese
of Canberra and Goulburn v. Hadba (2005), a child struck her face on a platform
when she was pulled off a flying fox piece of equipment in the school
playground. The accident occurred when the teacher on supervision was surveying
another part of the school compound. The plaintiff contended that the school was
liable for negligence as a different system of supervision would have prevented
the accident. The majority of the High Court judges in Australia held that it is
unlikely that even a teacher watching the equipment uninterruptedly would have
been able to prevent the plaintiffs fall once her legs were grabbed. Thus the High
Court judges were not satisfied that causation was established.
82
4.4
Other Legal Issues Arising from the Tort of Negligence
Negligence cases can easily arise from the lack of or inadequate supervision in a
variety of school activities and settings. These activities and settings may include
classrooms, physical education lessons, science laboratory activities, craft
workshops, cookery classes, art classes, activities before and after school hours,
school grounds, sports activities and field trips. It is thus acknowledged by Chan
Soo Sen, Minister of State at the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Community
Development and Sports, in the Initial Report of Singapore to the Committee on
the Rights of the Child that the safety and the best interest of a child could not
be compromised either by parents or teachers (United Nations Press Release,
200339).
The law in Canada, Australia and England expects teachers to exercise a duty of
care to safeguard the physical health and safety of their students by protecting
them from all reasonably foreseeable risks of injury or harm (Berryman, 1998,
Stewart, 1998a & 1998b; Palfreyman, 2001). The law in Singapore is no different
in this respect. However, two questions arise. First, does the physical health and
safety of students involve protection from peer aggression such as bullying, or
abuse or neglect by their care-givers, and would failure on the educators part to
act amount to negligence? Second, can schools be liable for educational
malpractice such as negligent teaching or failure to diagnose a learning disability?
These are interesting questions that can form separate studies of their own, but
the survey of the international trends and developments in these areas discussed
in Chapter Five may provide some indicative answers and guidance to educators
and policy makers in Singapore.
39
United Nations Press Release (2003, September 26). Committee on the Rights of the Child
considers initial report of Singapore. Retrieved 20 June, 2004, from http://www.hrea.org/
lists/child-rights/markup/msg00227.html
83
4.5
Criminal Force, Assault And Corporal Punishment
A relief teacher slapped a student because he forgot to bring his maths book to
school and another relief teacher knocked his students on their heads during a
maths lesson. Parents complained about the teachers actions and both relief
teachers were sacked (Relief Teacher, 2000). Had the teachers been taken to
court, would there be any legal liability on the part of the teachers? A brief
discussion of the use of criminal force, assault, intentional torts, the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) (CRC) and the Principals
Handbook may provide some answers to this question.
Simply put, criminal force is the intentional use of force on any person illegally to
cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person on whom the force is used (Section
350, Penal Code (Cap. 224, 1972) [Penal Code]). An assault, on the other hand, is
an overt attempt to physically injure a person or create a feeling of fear or
apprehension of injury. There are three elements of assault: (1) lack of consent
by the victim, (2) intention to cause injury and (3) an application of force to the
victim (or threat of force that the victim believes will be carried out) (Section
351, Penal Code). The phrases create a feeling of fear and threat of force
mean that there does not need to be actual physical contact in order for an
assault to occur. So in a classroom context, if a teacher held up a book and
threatened to throw the book at his or her student, and the student feared that
the book was going to be thrown at him, technically speaking, the teacher has
committed an assault. However, if the teacher has committed an assault, it is
usually because he or she was attempting to administer corporal punishment.
Corporal punishment is a disciplinary measure which involves intentionally
creating discomfort or pain in the student by physical means (Brown & Zuker,
84
2002, p. 132). The common law does not prohibit corporal punishment, but where
the extent of the force used is excessive or unreasonable, the teacher may be
subject to either civil and/or criminal liability (Giles, 1988; Knott, 1997a; Brown &
Zuker, 2002). Nevertheless, despite the principles of common law concerning
corporal punishment, most countries, as will be seen in chapter five, have banned
corporal punishment in schools.
A tort is a private wrong or civil injury committed by one against another. It deals
with the duties of care imposed on individuals to be cautious of the rights of other
individuals by operation of law (Russo & Mawdsley, 2003). Intentional torts include
torts such as assault or force carried out with the intention to bring about harmful
or offensive contact or an apprehension of such contact to another.
As a party to the CRC, Singapore has to uphold Article 19(1) which says:
State Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social
and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or
mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment,
maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of
parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the
child.
However, in agreeing to the CRC, Singapore also expressly declared that Article 19
does not prohibit the judicious application of corporal punishment in the best
interest of the child (UN Treaty Collection, 200140). The guidelines by the
Ministry of Education (MOE) in the Principals Handbook set very clear principles
40
United Nations Treaty Collection (2001). Declarations and reservations. Retrieved 19 June, 2004,
from http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/treaty15_asp.htm
85
that give due regard to Article 19 but at the same time allow schools to mete out
corporal punishment to maintain discipline.
According to B298 of the Principals Handbook, only the principal has the authority
to administer corporal punishment but he or she may delegate the task to the
vice-principal, a head of department or another senior teacher in the school. In
addition, only boys may be caned with a light cane and the maximum strokes are
six to be given either on the palms or buttocks. Schools are advised to keep a
proper record of the incident, which includes the date and time of the caning, the
name of the student, the person who used the cane, witnesses, the nature of the
offence and the number of strokes given. The students parents should be
informed immediately with details of the offence and the punishment meted out.
The school should also take appropriate follow-up action to counsel the pupil
concerned and, finally, corporal punishment should be used only as a last resort.
Going back to the examples at the beginning of this section (where the teachers
slapped and knocked students on the head), the teachers actions were clearly in
breach of the MOE guidelines and the termination of their services by their
principals was probably justifiable. Assuming the parents made a police report:
was criminal force used against the students? Probably not, since Section 350(i) of
the Penal Code clearly states that a schoolmaster, in the reasonable exercise of
his discretion as a master does not use force illegally even if he flogs one of his
students. However, the term reasonable exercise of his discretion is open to
interpretation. Similarly, if a civil suit is brought to court for intentional tort, the
court will look for factors such as whether a teachers action was a reasonable
exercise of his or her discretion to discipline students and if there was clear
86
intention to injure (see R v. Hopley (1860) cited in Giles, 1988, p. 139). While a
teacher may have overstepped the discretion given to him to exercise discipline,
the second test of intention to injure would usually be difficult to establish.
Principals frequently mention incidents of threatened legal suits against teachers

for assault or use of force against a student. Fortunately for teachers, such cases
have not reached the Singapore courts but, even if they do, the courts will
probably give teachers a great deal of latitude. This is because the courts are
aware that, in a classroom setting, a teacher may be guilty of assault or use of
force because of his or her attempt to exercise discipline or break up a fight. But
what is appropriate discipline in an educational setting, and if teachers are to be
considered as professionals, should they then be able to discharge their duties
without recourse to violence? Mr Justice Phillimore, in Mansell v. Griffiths (1908),
clearly laid down the common law principles that: it is enough for a teacher to say
that the punishment which he or she administered was moderate; it was not
driven by any bad motive but was such as is usual within the school; and it was the
kind of punishment that a parent of a child might expect the child to receive if
the child behaved badly. If these principles are strictly adhered to, it could be
argued that since teachers stand in place of the parent in the school, a teacher
should be justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil who is under
his or her care, so long as the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the
circumstances, and is not administered with malice and obvious intention to
injure. However, as seen in the CRC and the policies of many jurisdictions (see
Chapter Three), corporal punishment is viewed as a controversial practice. Its
proponents argue that it is an educationally sound disciplinary measure, while its
opponents view the practice as archaic, cruel and inhuman (La Morte, 1999).
87
There is thus no broad agreement on the appropriate discipline in an educational

setting. But until such time that a universal agreement on this issue is formed,
some would take the view that Singapore has moved in the right direction by
reserving the right for school principals to carry out corporal punishment as a
judicious means of maintaining discipline in the school.
4.6
Wrongful Confinement
Wrongful confinement occurs when one restrains a person in a manner to prevent

that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits (Section 339,
Penal Code). Locking a child in a closet is therefore wrongful confinement. In the
educational setting, confining children in the ordinary course of teaching is
inevitable. It is not uncommon for students to be sent to the principals office or
to after-school detention. So when can an educator be liable for wrongful
confinement?
Under common law, the teacher who is acting in loco parentis has implied
authority to detain a student, so long as the power is used reasonably and
moderately. Where the power is used unreasonably or excessively, the tort of
wrongful confinement would be committed (Fitzgerald v. Northcote [1865]).
Under the Children Act (1989) in England, detention for improper purposes might
even constitute child abuse (Harris, 2002). There is no equivalent of the English
Children Act (1989) in Singapore, but familiarity with the common law and the
policy guidelines given by MOE in the Principals Handbook may be very useful to
educators in this area. The MOE guidelines on detention can be summarised as
follows: (1) detention should not be used on the same students on a regular basis;
(2) teachers should not detain a student alone after other students have been
88
dismissed; (3) appropriate written work must be assigned; and (4) parents must be
informed in advance of the date, time and duration of the detention (B299, B300
& B301, Ministry of Education, 2000b). Many schools in Singapore may be
unknowingly breaching these guidelines by confining students to a room without
assigning them any written work or, worse, making them perform cleaning jobs,
such as picking up litter. For example, there was a case involving Kent Ridge
Secondary School, where the school detained 17 students for seven hours without
food or drinks for possessing and viewing pornography on VCDs. One of the
students had Hirschsprungs disease, a condition where the walls of his intestines
may have fused together if he had been deprived of food and drink, and the
school had been informed about this condition. Although the offence committed
by the students was criminal, and appropriate police action was required, the
students should have been given meal breaks during the detention hours. The
MOE, in a press statement, said that the school should have handled the
situation better, and the school admitted that it should have explained the
situation to the parents more effectively (Ng, 2004). If the sick student had
suffered any serious injury due to the detention, there could have been serious
legal implications for the school. Adherence to item (4) of the MOE guidelines on
detention would have avoided this situation.
4.7
Expulsion and Suspension - Due Process
Schools operate to facilitate the education of young people in a wholesome

environment. Where a student behaves in a manner that disrupts this process,
such as persistent truancy, persistent retaliation against teachers and principals,
wilful destruction of property and causing injury to fellow students, schools may
be prepared to consider extreme discipline measures like suspension and
89
expulsion. In the Constitution of most developed countries, the government

normally guarantees that a person's basic rights to life, liberty or property, will
not be taken away without due process of law. By due process, it means that
laws and legal proceedings must be fair. In the school context, when a school
decides to suspend or expel a student, it must exercise procedural fairness, that
is, to show that the procedure used by the school to arrive at a decision to expel
or suspend a student is fair (Brown & Zuker, 2002). Schools in various jurisdictions
generally have policies governing the grounds for suspension or expulsion, and in
some jurisdictions, for example, Ontario, Canada, there is even a law enacted
that allows mandatory expulsion to be imposed41.
4.8
Anti-discrimination Legislation Special Needs Children
The Blacks Law Dictionary defines discrimination as unfair treatment or denial

of normal privileges to persons because of their race, age, sex, nationality or
religion (Black, 1990, p.467). However, in jurisdictions where anti-discrimination
legislation is enacted, the prohibition of discrimination also extends to persons
with disabilities. In the education context, it is generally acknowledged that some
special needs children may have to be treated differently in order to gain
effective and equal access to education (Brown & Zuker, 2002; Ramsay & Shorten,
1996). A study by Varnham (2002) shows that most of the comparable jurisdictions
implement various processes (for example, statementing or an individualised
education plan) in their respective legislation to provide for the needs of children
who require special help.
41
Ontario, a law has been passed to establish mandatory grounds for suspension or expulsion of
students (Section 306 of the Education Act).
90
4.9
Sexual Misconduct of Teachers - Non-delegable Duty of Care?
The concept of duty of care was briefly explained earlier in this chapter as duty
to take reasonable care. If a teacher had acted reasonably and a breach of the
standard of care cannot be proven, liability cannot be established. Non-delegable
duty of care is more stringent. It goes a step further to hold a school responsible
for injury or loss suffered even if the school had engaged a competent person to
carry out the schools duties. All the plaintiff needs to show is that the school had
not taken all reasonable care to provide an adequate system to avoid a
foreseeable risk of injury (Commonwealth v. Introvigne [1982]).
While it is understandable that courts would expect schools to exercise

immaculate care when it comes to safety of children, the imposition of nondelegable duty of care on schools for the sexual misconduct of teachers may just
be too onerous and demanding for schools. Recent cases in Australia and Canada42
have dealt extensively with this issue and the courts have raised the possibility of
imposing vicarious liability on schools for a teachers intentional misconduct, even
if it is criminal in nature. Vicarious liability is defined as the imposition of
liability on one person for the actionable conduct of another, based solely on a
relationship between the two personsfor example, the liability of an employer
for the acts of an employee (Black, 1990, p. 1566). The House of Lords decision
in Lister v. Hesley Hall (2002) gave some guidance as to when an employer (or a
school or education authority) could be held vicariously liable for the intentional
wrong of its employees:
42
See the discussion on the Australian High Court decisions of New South Wales v. Lepore; Samin v.
Queensland; Rich v. Queensland (2003) and the Canadian Supreme Court cases of Bazley v. Curry
(1999) and Jacobi v. Griffiths (1999) in the next chapter.
91
(a) where the conduct complained of was done in the intended pursuit of
the employers interests or in the intended performance of the contract
of employment; or
(b) where the conduct complained of was done in the ostensible pursuit of
the employers business or the apparent execution of the authority
which the employer held out the employee as having. (Lister v. Hesley
Hall (2002) at p239)
An example of how the above can occur is this: teacher strikes a student, and
student makes a police report. The school authority can be held to be vicariously
liable for assault if it can be proven that the incident took place in the context of
punishment and the teacher exceeded what was reasonable in the circumstances
(example given by the High Court in New South Wales v. Lepore; Samin v.
Queensland; Rich v. Queensland (2003)[Lepore]). Applying the example to a
sexual abuse case, the High Court went on to say that a school could potentially
be vicariously liable for a teachers sexual assaults if it can be shown that the
teachers responsibilities at the time of the assaults placed the teacher in a
position of power and intimacy towards the children in his care. His conduct
towards them could then be regarded as so closely connected with his
responsibilities as to be in the course of his employment (Gleeson J in Lepore).
In an analysis of Australian, English and Canadian cases of sexual misconduct of

teachers carried out by Stafford (2003), it was shown that the courts are reluctant
to impose a non-delegable duty of care on education authorities for injury caused
by the deliberate criminal act of a teacher. Callinan J, in Lepore, indicated that
non-delegable duties of an education authority include the following: the
engagement of reliable, carefully screened and trained employees, the provision
92
of suitable premises, an adequate system of monitoring employees and an

efficient system for the prevention and detection of sexual abuse (Stafford, 2003).
4.10
Privacy Laws
Privacy laws vary in every country and they encompass laws that protect a
persons right to be left alone (i.e. free from intrusion into matters of a personal
nature) and laws that restrict access to personal information (Black, 1990). This is
a huge area of law, as it involves human rights issues and possibly constitutional
matters. However, as this study attempts to identify legal issues that affect the
administration of schools, a brief review of privacy laws in connection with
student records will be discussed later in the study.
4.11
Defamation
This area of the law has relevance in the educational arena. As part of their job,
school administrators are called upon to formally evaluate the performance of
teachers and students. An irrational prejudice, or gross or exaggerated language
leading to the making of defamatory remarks in written form may land school
administrators in a libel suit. There are also times when teachers may be provoked
into telling parents in the most untactful way what they think of the parents or
their child. This could lead to complaints by the parents, but sometimes a teacher
may be accused of libel or slander, and legal suits may be threatened. Conversely,
it has been known that parents have told teachers very blatantly what they think
of them and this has led to teachers threatening to take the parents to court for
defamation.
93
Defamation involves the publication of false information or statements that tend

to lower the reputation of a person in the eyes of right-thinking people, or
cause him to be exposed to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or shunned or avoided
(Evans, 1993; The Common Law Library No. 8, 1998). Defamation can be in the
form of spoken or written words. Defamatory words that are spoken involve the
tort of slander, while defamatory words that are in written form fall under the
tort of libel. A statement would also be defamatory if it disparages a person with
reference to his profession or employment.
Publication means transmitting information to a third party. If the defamatory

information is made directly to the person concerned with no other person
present, these words cannot be said to be injurious to that individuals reputation.
Words can include caricatures or cartoons, pictures, visual images, gestures,
signs, statues and effigies, which can all convey defamatory imputations (Evans,
1993, Section 2 Defamation Act (Cap. 75, 1985) [Defamation Act]).
Where a potential defamation situation arises in schools, several defences may be

raised. In a case where the alleged defamatory statement was published
unintentionally (a valid defence), an apology is usually issued (Section 7,
Defamation Act). Another defence is that of justification. If the statement made
is true or substantially true, the defence of justification will succeed (Section 8,
Defamation Act). The next defence is that of fair comment. If in expressing an
opinion, a person genuinely believes the facts on which the opinion is based, he or
she will have a defence (Section 9 Defamation Act). The final defence to be
discussed here is the common law defence of qualified privilege.
94
As mentioned above, school administrators are called upon to formally evaluate

the performance of other teachers and students. Such evaluations are protected
by qualified privilege because they involve an official responsibility. Qualified
privilege occurs when statements are made in the protection of a common
interest or in the performance of a public or private duty, whether legal, moral or
social. In other words, to establish qualified privilege, the person who makes the
communication must show he or she has an interest or a duty (legal, social or
moral) to make it and the person to whom it is so made must have a corresponding
interest or duty to receive it. Therefore, qualified privilege can be lost if the
statement is published more widely than is necessary. Another way in which
qualified privilege can be lost is if it is proved that the statement published was
motivated by malice (Evans, 1993).
Giles (1988) correctly observed that very few teachers appreciate the pressures
and problems faced by principals and, similarly, after leaving the classroom for
several years, many principals forget the pressures of the classroom. This results
in mutual evaluations not being entirely fair or objective. To avoid
misunderstanding and its potential for incurring defamation suits, it may be
advisable for school administrators to ensure that evaluations are discussed and
even to be prepared to change preliminary evaluations once greater understanding
has been achieved. Again, the guidelines given in Section B101 to B105 in the
Principals Handbook offer some useful hints to school administrators on achieving
a fair and objective assessment of their teachers.
95
4.12
Conclusion
Legal issues can affect education, as can be seen from legal principles gleaned
from statutory and common law. This chapter has addressed legal concepts that
have a bearing on student supervision and discipline, in particular the area of
negligence and duty of care. It has also dealt with the legal concepts of due
process, privacy, defamation, and showed how they can affect the education
sector and the administration of schools. However, as stated in the introduction to
this chapter, the key legal concepts introduced here are by no means exhaustive
and there are several other legal concepts, such as copyright, contract law and
family law, which may play a role in schools. Also, the legal principles that have
been discussed are far more complex than this overview might suggest.
Nevertheless, the aim has been to show that there is a need for a greater
understanding of the role of the law in education and how it may have a direct
impact on schools and their personnel. This chapter has also demonstrated the
need for educators whether in the classroom or the administrators office to be
aware of general legal principles relating to civil legal liability that can be applied
in the education context.
In the next chapter, a survey of legal issues in education from the international
scene is carried out. The focus is primarily on commonwealth countries. The
overview from these other jurisdictions can give us clues about averting legal risk
in the education sector in Singapore.
96
CHAPTER FIVE
LITERATURE REVIEW
AN OVERVIEW OF AREAS OF LAW IN EDUCATION FROM THE INTERNATIONAL
SCENE
5.1
Introduction
The 10th December 1948 was Human Rights Day. On that momentous day, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the General
Assembly of the United Nations. Since Human Rights Day, many nations have
enshrined the principles of the Declaration in their constitutions and, with these
principles, nations have seen a continuing growth in the use of the legal process
by individuals to enforce and protect their rights. Singapore, as a member of the
UN43, has on various occasions reaffirmed and pledged its commitment to
achieving and promoting universal respect for and observance of human rights and
fundamental freedoms44, and the rights of the Singapore people are entrenched in
the nations constitution.
Education is a fundamental human right, and now more so since the adoption by
the United Nations of the Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 (CRC). It
has come as no surprise, therefore, that, since the UDHR and CRC, the law has had
an influence on education systems, schools, schooling and participants in the
education process. So far, in many common law countries, most notably Australia,
Canada, New Zealand and the UK, there has been an increase in the legal
processes being used to frame and challenge policies, practices and decisionmaking; and in all educational institutions, but in particular, schools (Russo &
43
44
Singapore became a member of the United Nations on 21 September 1965.
See the UN Conference on Human Rights in Vienna 1993 and the United Nations Millennium
Declaration adopted by the General Assembly on 8 September 2000.
97
Stewart, 2001). In the United States, where people are generally considered to be
more litigious than those in other jurisdictions, the Courts have been dealing with
education-related cases for over a century. In this chapter, a survey of education
and the law in these common law countries is set out and an analysis provided on
how these jurisdictions can give clues about averting legal risk in the education
sector in Singapore.
5.2
Areas of Legal Issues in Education in the US and the Comparison with
other Commonwealth Countries
In 1954, the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)

(Brown) was decided and paved the way for the growth of education law in
the US. In Brown, the US Supreme Court struck down the racially segregated
public schools by overruling an earlier case (Plessy v. Ferguson [1896]) which
upheld the separate but equal principle. The Court also rejected the argument
that the Fourteenth Amendment was never meant to apply to schools. The
Fourteenth Amendment reads nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law (being treated basically the same
as another person has been under similar circumstances); nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (italics mine). In this case,
the Court showed that the Constitution and its amendments must be read in the
light of new and changing conditions. The Court recognised that education had
become
perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. It is
the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument
in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later
professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his
98
environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be

expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education.
Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a
right which must be available to all on equal terms. (Brown, 1954, p. 493).
Since Brown, the US has undergone a wide range of educational, legal and social
transformations, such that it can be argued that Brown ushered in an era of equal
educational opportunities for all children and saw the birth of education law as
a field of study and professional practice (Russo & Stewart, 2001).
It is not surprising that the US Supreme Court has had a great influence on the
course of public education, because many of the amendments in the Constitution
involve problems directly associated with education. These problems stem mainly
from Americans knowledge of and interest in their civil rights. Yell and
Katsiyannis (2001) examine three areas in which the federal courts have reviewed
federal laws that have had a huge impact on education in the US. These areas are:
(a) privacy (student records), (b) the education of students with disabilities and
their civil rights, and (c) school safety. Before these areas and other areas of law
in education are reviewed, the topic of compulsory education will first be
examined.
5.3
Compulsory Education
5.3.1 Compulsory Education in the US

It is not surprising that after the case of Brown, the education of children in the
US has become very important. Every state in the US has some form of laws
ensuring children between certain ages attend public, private or home school.
Failure to comply with the compulsory education law may result in criminal
99
prosecution. Litigation pertaining to compulsory attendance in schools involves

mainly the issue of balancing the states interest in ensuring the student receives
an appropriate education and the rights of parents to decide when and where
their child attends school (La Morte, 1999, p. 19). The landmark case of Pierce v.
Society of Sisters (1925) established the principle that a states requirement of
compulsory attendance in schools can be met through private schools and not just
public schools. If the school is private, it may be either a religious school or a
secular school. This case highlighted the Courts philosophy that parents should be
given freedom to exercise their choice for the education of their children.
This freedom of choice has led today to all states making allowance for
alternatives to public schools as long as such alternatives are equivalent in scope
and quality (Fischer, et al., 2003, p. 391). This effectively means that parents
can even home school their children if it can be proved that the home teaching
is adequate and equivalent to that of the public schools. This interpretation was
confirmed in the case of People v. Levisen (1950) when the Supreme Court of
Illinois held that the purpose of the law is that all children shall be educated, not
that they shall be educated in a particular manner or place. The Court was
satisfied that the Illinois law, which specified private school as an alternative
included the place and nature of instruction and, in this case, the fact that the
place was the home and that the instruction was given by the mother of the child
(who was trained in pedagogy and educational psychology) was acceptable.
For various reasons, home schooling in the US has increased significantly over the
years. According to La Morte (1999, p. 26), sixty per cent of the states have
100
adopted home schooling statutes or regulations, and half the states even require
home schooled students to participate in standardised testing or evaluation.
5.3.2 Compulsory Education in Australia

Education in Australia is compulsory and the ages (generally between 6 and 15)
are specified by the various states (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade,
n.d.). The early cases (around the late 19th century) concerning education in
Australia were cases that challenged the compulsory schooling provision of the
various Education Acts. Like the US, some parents argued for the right to home
school their children and other cases examined the concept of appropriate and
adequate schooling.
In Fleming v. Greene (1907), the Chief Justice criticised the ambiguity of the
regulatory provisions of the now repealed Victorian Education Act (1890). Some of
the provisions that were criticised related to the extent, amount and quality of
education provided in government schools. Another case, Minister for Education v.
Maunsell (1923), which was decided in Western Australia, saw the Supreme Court
laying down the principle that decisions as to what constituted adequate schooling
and who had the right to compel a parent to send a child to a proper school
were held to be that of the Minister. Legislation in all Australian states now place
an obligation on parents to ensure that their children attend school and failure to
do so may result in penalties (Ramsay & Shorten, 1996).
5.3.3 Compulsory Education in New Zealand

State education in New Zealand is free and compulsory for children between the
ages of 6 and 16 and within the education system there are three different types
101
of school: state schools, integrated schools and private schools. Integrated schools
are schools that used to be private and have now become part of the state
system. For state and integrated schools, the ultimate legal responsibility for the
students in their care lies with locally elected boards of trustees, while for
independent schools, the responsibility lies with similar governing bodies. The
National Education Guidelines contain statements of goals for education in New
Zealand as well as administrative requirements. One of the guidelines specifically
directs schools to provide a safe physical and emotional environment and in
taking reasonable steps to deal with peer harassment or bullying as seen earlier,
New Zealand is arguably reaching towards one of the goals for education, that it,
to enable all students to realise their full potential as individuals.
5.3.4 Compulsory Education in England

In England, children are required by law to have an education until they are 16
years old. Interestingly, Section 7 of the Education Act (1996) (EA 1996) states:
The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to
receive efficient full-time education suitable(a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and
(b) to any special educational needs he may have,
either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.
Or otherwise suggests that children are not required to attend school. In other
words, education is compulsory, but school is not. They could be educated at
home. However as the term education in section 7 is not defined in EA 1996, the
case of Harrison & Harrison v. Stevenson (1981) provides us some guidance. In this
case, the judge defined education as the development of mental powers and
character and the acquisition of knowledge through the imparting of skills and
102
learning by systematic instruction. He went on to describe an efficient system of

education as one which achieves that which it sets out to achieve. In the end,
he defined education as suitable if it is such as, first, to prepare the children for
life in modern civilised society; and second, to enable them to achieve their full
potential (Education Otherwise, 2007). Having such a broad definition, it will be
interesting to see as a separate study how the local education authorities in
England manages or monitors a childs education in school and at home.
5.3.5 Compulsory Education in Canada

Following the case of Brown45, it can be argued that education is probably the
most important function of a government. In Canada, the government provides
free public education to all Canadian citizens and permanent residents. The
Constitution Act (1867) in Canada provides that In and for each province, the
legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to education. As such, in the 13
jurisdictions, the departments or ministries of education have the autonomy and
responsibilities for the organisation, delivery and assessment of education. The
ages for compulsory schooling vary from one jurisdiction to another, but most
require attendance in school from age 6 to age 16. In some provinces, compulsory
schooling starts at 5, and in others, it extends to age 18 or graduation from
secondary school (Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, n.d.).
Like most jurisdictions, the compulsory education legislation in Canada provides

for home schooling by parents who do not think public education is suitable for
their children. In R v. Jones (1986), which was heard in the Supreme Court of
Canada, the appellant, the pastor of a fundamentalist church, refused to send his
45
See page 97, the case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954).
103
children to public school as required by section 142(1) of the Alberta School Act
(1980) and also refused to seek an exemption under section 143(1)(a). Instead, he
educated his three children and others in a schooling program operating in the
church basement. He argued that he had a God-given mandate to do so. Under
section 143(a), non-attendance was permitted if the relevant authorities issued a
certificate attesting that the appellants children were receiving efficient
instruction at home or elsewhere. As a consequence, he was charged with three
counts of truancy under s. 180(1) of the School Act.
Pastor Jones invoked sections 2(a) and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedom, Constitution Act (1982) as his defence46 and maintained that the
requirement in sections 142(1) and 143(1) of the School Act (1980) contravened his
religious beliefs that God, rather than the Government, had the final authority
over the education of his children, and deprived him of his liberty to educate his
children as he pleased contrary to the principles of fundamental justice. The
Supreme Court of Canada decided that Section 2(a) did not apply to this case and
that there was no deprivation of liberty as the state has legitimate interest
in monitoring and imposing minimum standards on private schools (Brown &
Zuker, 2002, p. 205).
5.3.6 Compulsory Education in South Africa

In an interview, Mr Kader Asmal, the Minister of Education in South Africa
admitted that South Africa did not have compulsory education in the country until
1996. During the 40 years of apartheid education, schooling was first for whites,
46
Section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom says Everyone has the following
fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion, while section 7 states: Everyone
has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof
except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
104
then the coloured, next the Indians and finally for the black Africans (Education
Today, n.d.).
The passing of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa in 1996 (the
Constitution) gave several directives which had serious implications for education
and the law in this country. The Constitution also allows parents to home school
their children so long as the educator or parent provides the child or children with
one to one interaction in a loving, safe and secure environment (Davis, n.d.).
The fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution (which contains the Bill of
Rights) include a free basic education for everyone financed out of state funds.
However, although schooling today is compulsory between the ages of 7 and 15
and all learners (students) guaranteed access to quality learning, the main
challenge is providing free education to the rural areas in the country (Education
In, 2006). The success of compulsory education in South Africa will depend on
how the government can reconcile legislative intent and practical application.
5.4
Privacy (Student Records)
5.4.1 Student Records in the US

Prior to 1974, teachers and administrators in the US were not concerned about the
confidentiality of student records, because there were no restrictions on who
could see or be granted access to them. It was also common practice for schools
to deny parental requests for inspection of their childrens educational records, as
it was time consuming and costly; and, further, schools felt that it would increase
their accountability by opening up the educational process to public scrutiny (Yell
& Katsiyannis, 2001).
105
The problems with this practice were that it led to abuses, such as a parent not
being able to see records that resulted in his or her child being transferred to a
class for the mentally retarded, and students records being released to outsiders
easily. Students and their parents did not have knowledge of the information
about them in school records and how they were used, and policies for regulating
access to records by non-school personnel were non-existent in most school
systems. Parents also did not have any formal procedures to challenge erroneous
information that existed in the school records (Fischer et al., 2003, p. 375).
Because of these abuses, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (1974)
(FERPA) was passed in 1974. With FERPA, parents were guaranteed parental
access to student records and schools were prohibited from granting access to
these records to persons who did not have legitimate reasons to know their
contents. FERPA also established procedures that now enable parents to challenge
the accuracy of student records.
5.4.2 Student Records in Australia

In Australia, there are privacy laws at both federal and state levels that govern
the provision of personal information. Where personal information about an
individual is actively collected by an agency, including government agencies, such
information cannot be divulged to another without the permission of the
individual (Cumming & Mawdsley, 2005 & 2006). The implications of these laws
are that schools need to be familiar with the privacy laws and policies in their
respective states when reporting personal information about a student to parents,
or in granting access to information to a third party about students or their
parents.
106
5.4.3 Student Records in New Zealand

In New Zealand, the Privacy Act (1993) was passed to protect the privacy of
individuals. While allowing agencies to gather, store and use private information,
the Privacy Act also requires such agencies to adhere to privacy principles. For
example, a parent may request the address of the custodial parent or a family
may contact the school about information pertaining to interviews conducted by a
social welfare agency with a child concerning allegations of child abuse. In such
situations, the school is prohibited from supplying the information to the parent or
family (Varnham, 2001a).
5.4.4 Student Records in England

Teachers and schools have long had a duty of care to keep accurate records on
pupils progress, achievements and problems. This duty now extends to allowing
parents and pupils, who make a written request, to see their school records
(Lowe, 2002; The Campaign for Freedom of Information, n.d.). Legislation, namely
the Data Protection Act (1998), ensures that ones personal information will not
be released to a third party without ones consent (unless certain specified
exemptions apply).
In 2000, the Freedom of Information Act (2000) was passed, which imposed a
statutory duty on schools to make information available proactively through a
publication scheme (Information Commissioners Office, n.d.). With this scheme,
schools can make a significant amount of information available without the need
for a specific request. However, all publication schemes must be approved by the
Information Commissioner, so that the Commissioner (being an independent body)
107
can oversee and enforce both the Freedom of Information Act (2000) and the Data
Protection Act (1998).
5.4.5 Student Records in Canada

There is federal government legislation that governs the use of personal
information in commercial activities in Canada, but as far as personal information
collected by schools is concerned, provincial legislation applies (Office of the
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, n.d.). For example, in Ontario, the Municipal
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (1990) (FIPPA) sets out a
scheme that requires the local government (including school boards) to protect
the privacy of an individuals personal information. The scheme consists of rules
that regulate the collection, retention, use, disclosure and disposal of personal
information (Information and Privacy Commissioner, n.d.). The FIPPA further
allows an individual to write a complaint to the office of the Information and
Privacy Commissioner where the complainant believes that personal information
has been unlawfully disclosed, or to appeal against a school boards decision to
deny a request for access to a students record47.
5.4.6 Student Records in South Africa

In upholding the constitutional mandate to promote human rights, South Africa
passed the Promotion of Access to Information Act (2000) (PAIA) to give all
South Africans the right to access to records held by the state, government
institutions and private organisations (South African Human Rights Commission,
n.d.). The Constitution of South Africa provides that everyone has a right of access
to information held by the State and similarly requires private bodies to grant
47
See http://www.accessandprivacy.gov.on.ca/english/order/mun/m-104.html and

http://www.ipc.on.ca/images/Findings/Attached_PDF/MC-020008-1.pdf for examples of a
complaint and an appeal under the Act.
108
right of access to information to everyone who requires it for the exercise or

protection of rights (Section 32 of the Constitution of the Republic of South
Africa). One reason for this legislation is probably to stem corruption in public
institutions and to promote transparency and accountability. Like elsewhere,
South African schools will have to develop policies to preserve the privacy rights
of students, but, at the same time, allow access to information to those who have
a legitimate right to it.
5.5
Students with Disabilities
5.5.1 Students with Disabilities in the US

Earlier, it was mentioned that the case of Brown ushered in an era of equal
educational opportunities for children in the US. Indeed, the advocates of the
rights of children with disabilities relied heavily on this case to establish disabled
childrens right to education. The PARC (Pennsylvania Association for Retarded
Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania [1972]) and Mills (Mills v. Board of
Education of the District of Columbia [1972]) cases were the two landmark cases
that paved the way for the conviction that the equal protection and due process
clauses in the Constitution protect the right of children with disabilities to be
given access to public schools, and to free and appropriate education (Fischer et
al., 2003, p. 348).
Prior to PARC and Mills, many children with disabilities were completely excluded
from public schools, and those few who were admitted did not receive an
education that was appropriate to their needs (Yell & Katsiyannis, 2001). The
result of the PARC and Mills cases was the enactment of the Education of All
Handicapped Children Act (1975) (EAHCA), the goal of which was to ensure that
109
all students with disabilities received a free and appropriate education. Under
EAHCA, it became a legal requirement that students with disabilities receive
special education and related services (a) that are provided at public expense, (b)
that meet the standards of the state educational agency, (c) that include an
appropriate preschool, elementary, or secondary school education in the state
involved, and (d) that are provided in conformity with the individualised education
program (IEP) (Yell & Katsiyannis, 2001, p. 84). The IEP is both a collaborative
process between the parents and the school in which the educational programme
is developed, and it is a document that contains the essential components of a
students educational programme (Gorn, 1997).
Since the enactment of EAHCA in 1975, several changes were made to the law to
expand the rights of students with disabilities, and EAHCA was subsequently
renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1990) (IDEA)48. In 1997,
the IDEA was amended pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Amendments of 1997 to more clearly reflect the governments effort to provide
handicapped children with a beneficial education (Schaefer, 2000). Some of the
more important cases relating to special education deal with issues such as
whether a disabled child would benefit from special education, what constitutes
free appropriate public education and related services provided by the
schools. These cases were federal cases heard by the US Supreme Court, the
highest court in the US.
In Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley

(1982) the parents of the disabled child argued that the school failed to provide
48
Pursuant to Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments (1990)
110
services that would enable their child to gain the maximum from her school
experience. The US Supreme Court held that, so long as the state provides
students with sufficient support services and an IEP reasonably calculated to
permit a child to receive meaningful benefit, the law is satisfied that free
appropriate public education has been provided. The maximisation of the
potential of the child is not required. In Cedar Rapids Community School District
v. Garret F. (1999) the parents of a physically handicapped child requested the
school district to pay for the nursing services required by the child. The school
district refused on the basis that the services required by the child were medical
services and not related services. The US Supreme Court held that school
districts must provide any and all necessary health services to qualified students
with disabilities, regardless of the intensity or complexity of the services, as long
as they do not need to be provided by a physician. These cases and others
following EAHCA/IDEA suggest that the education of students with disabilities is
probably an area of education that is most highly litigated in the US.
Legislation and case law in the US show that much has been done to extend equal
protection of the law and due process to all school-aged children with disabilities.
As Fischer et al. (2003, p. 370) state, The legal standards and tools are
substantially in place to help these students achieve their full human potential.
The civil rights of students with disabilities

Apart from the IDEA, two other major federal laws established the rights of
children with disabilities. They are section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (1973)
(Section 504) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) (ADA). Both Section
504 and the ADA protect children and adults from discrimination on the basis of
111
their disability (Taylor, 2001). For Section 504, discrimination takes the form of
excluding a child from participating in any programme or activity receiving federal
funds solely by reason of that childs handicap. However, the handicapped child
must be otherwise qualified for participation in the programmes or activities, and
reasonable accommodation for the child must be possible. For example, the
exclusion of a blind student from driving in a drivers education programme would
not violate the mandates of Section 504, because the student could not be safely
accommodated in the activity. The ADA applies to private employers and
commercial entities serving the public and also applies to all state and local
government programmes, including public schools. An example of how the ADA
impacts the operation of schools is in the requirement for schools to make public
accommodation, such as athletic stadiums, auditoriums and other facilities,
barrier-free for individuals with disabilities attending school events (La Morte,
1999; 337 & 349).
5.5.2 Students with Disabilities in Australia

Although it can be argued that the people of Australia are not as litigious as their
counterparts in the US, Williams (1995), based on research in Australia, argues
that the legalisation of education in Australia is indicated by
educational decision making and practices... being challenged by those who
feel disaffected or disadvantaged by the education system. It is the law that
is increasingly providing both the grounds upon which such challenges can be
made and the remedies many complainants seek (Williams, 1995, p. 2).
An area of law concerning education that has been developing in Australia is one
that concerns student rights. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
112
Commission49 (the Commission), which is a national independent statutory

government body, even has a section in its website to educate students about
their rights. In the area of education, the Commission has responsibilities for
inquiring into alleged infringements under three federal anti-discrimination laws
the Sex Discrimination Act (1984), Disability Discrimination Act (1992) and the
Age Discrimination Act (2004). In addition to these federal laws, antidiscrimination laws exist in each state and territory of Australia and these laws
are overseen by the State and Territory Equal Opportunity Commissions (Australian
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, n.d.).
Schools are increasingly confronted with disputes over the identification,

placement, and resources associated with special needs students, and more cases
are being heard in the States and Territories Equal Opportunity Commissions
(Russo & Stewart, 2001). An example of State legislation that was passed to
protect the rights of students with special needs was the Anti-Discrimination Act
(1991) of Queensland. This Act was enacted to promote equal opportunity for
everyone by protecting them from unfair discrimination in certain areas of
activity, including education. There is also similar legislation in the other
Australian states, but for the purpose of this chapter, the Anti-Discrimination Act
(1991) of Queensland is put forward as representative of how the area of special
needs has developed in Australia. In the same way that the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (1990) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (1973)
in the US safeguard the rights of American children with disabilities, the AntiDiscrimination Act (1991) of Queensland makes it unlawful to discriminate against
prospective students on the grounds of any impairment. It is also unlawful to
49
Established in 1986 by an Act of the federal Parliament, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission Act.
113
exclude a student or treat the student unfavourably on the basis of the students
impairment in the course of his or her training or instruction received (Stewart,
Russo & Osborne, 2002). Like Section 504 of the US Rehabilitation Act (1973), an
exception to the anti-discrimination rule is in a situation where providing the
special facilities or services causes an institution to suffer unjustifiable hardship.
In such a situation, lawful discrimination will be permitted, as the case of L v.
Minister for Education for the State of Queensland (1995) illustrates.
L, seven years old, suffered from severe mental and physical disorders and was
placed in an integrated elementary school classroom at the insistence of her
parents. After a process of assessing her needs and developing an Individual
Education Programme, funding was approved to hire a teachers aide to assist her
at school. In 1994, L started attending the integrated unit in the school for three
days a week. However, from the beginning, teachers were concerned about the
way L behaved and the excessive amount of time spent caring for her needs. Some
specific problems identified by the teachers were Ls crying and loud vocalising,
the inability to concentrate on her work, the failure to return to class after
breaks, a tendency to regurgitate, and toileting incidents. L was suspended from
school in July 1995 and subsequently recommended to be excluded from the
integrated school programme, as her behaviour was prejudicial to the good order
and discipline of the school; and heightened health and hygiene risks to other
students. Ls parents initiated legal action, claiming direct discrimination within
the meaning of the Anti-Discrimination Act (1991). Having examined the facts of
the case and the provisions of the Act, the Tribunal held that the school had
subjected L to discrimination, but it was not unlawful discrimination, since her
retention would cause unjustifiable hardship to other students.
114
In a later case heard by the High Court of Australia, the case of Purvis v. New
South Wales (Department of Education and Training)(2003)(Purvis), the High
Court had to determine whether a pupil was discriminated against on the ground
of his disability and whether the school had an obligation to provide reasonable
accommodation or make reasonable adjustments for persons with a disability.
In Purvis, Daniel suffered brain damage when he was a baby and, as a result, he
had intellectual disabilities which affected his thought processes, perception of
reality and emotions. The disability also led to behavioural problems, which
manifested themselves in aggressive behaviour such as hitting or kicking. Daniel
was periodically suspended from school after incidents involving injury caused by
him to other students and teachers. Having gone to great lengths to accommodate
Daniel but still not being able to resolve the issue of Daniels violent behaviour
with his legal guardian (Mr Purvis), and in the interest of the safety of the other
students and the staff, the principal finally decided to exclude Daniel from the
school. Mr Purvis lodged a complaint with the Commission, alleging that the school
had breached the Disability Discrimination Act (1992) (Cth) (DDA) by
discriminating against Daniel. The Commission found that there had been a
contravention, but that decision was set aside by Emmett J in the Federal Court of
Australia. Emmett J was of the view that less favourable treatment on the ground
of the behaviour is not the same as less favourable treatment by reason of the
disability. Mr Purvis appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court, which upheld
Emmett Js decision. Mr Purvis then appealed to the High Court of Australia.
Mr Purvis argued that Daniels behaviour was brought about by the disorder from
which he suffered, and by excluding him because of of his behaviour, he was
115
treated less favourably than a person without the disability. The High Court, by
way of a 5 to 2 majority, dismissed this argument. It held that the school, by
virtue of the CRC, owed a duty of care to all its pupils. Thus, in seeking to protect
the rights of disabled pupils pursuant to the DDA, it cannot be the intention of
Parliament to disregard Australias obligations to protect the rights of other
pupils. Further, the High Court felt that it would be unlikely that federal
legislation would impose on a State educational authority the adoption of
measures that would require it to tolerate criminal behaviour, no matter how
difficult, disruptive, expensive or ineffectual those measures might be.
Australian government and community now encourage a more inclusive attitude

towards students with disabilities at all levels of education but it is difficult to
provide a definitive guide as to what is and what is not discrimination on the
grounds of disability (Stafford, 2004, p. 451). However, the courts have shown
that in determining the rights of students with disabilities, the rights of other
students are not disregarded.
5.5.3 Students with Disabilities in New Zealand

The anti-discrimination legislation in New Zealand is contained in the Human
Rights Act (1993) (HRA). The applicable section for schools is Section 57, which
prohibits discrimination in all educational establishments. This section states
that it is unlawful for an educational establishment to subject a student to any
detriment by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination. The
prohibited grounds are set out in Section 21 of the HRA and they include sex and
sexual orientation, religious and ethical belief, colour, race, ethnic or national
origins, and physical impairment and disability (Varnham, 1999). Further, Section
116
62 of the HRA deals specifically with sexual harassment, and it applies even to
education.
The second issue is that of special education. Prior to the Education Act (1989),
parents of special needs children were responsible for the education of their
children and if a child was required to be sent to a special school, it was at the
parents expense50. Following the widespread shift in attitudes towards the place
of the disabled in society as a whole, the issue of special needs was specifically
addressed in the Education Act (1989). The legislative effect of the relevant
section is that children with special educational needs are to be placed in a
regular school environment. The basis for this is that special needs children have
the same right to education51 in the mainstream system as all other persons. It is
also believed that not only will special needs children benefit from a regular
school environment, but all other members of the school community will also
benefit from the assimilation of these special needs children into the regular
classroom. However, the Education Act (1989) allowed for the continued
operation of special schools, classes, clinics or services, with the power given to
the Minister of Education to disestablish any of those facilities if he is satisfied
that sufficient provision is made by another similarly established facility by any
other school or class in or near the same locality (Varnham, 2002).
50
Section 115 of the now repealed Education Act 1964. S115 - Director-General may in certain
circumstances direct that a child be sent to special school, etc.---(1) It shall be the duty of the
parent of every child who has attained the age of 7 years and is of school age and is suffering from
disability of body or mind of such magnitude as to require special education to take steps to provide
efficient and suitable education for the child.
51
Section 8 of the Education Act 1989.
117
In 1997, the Minister of Education introduced a policy known as Special Education

2000, which was aimed at eventually disestablishing all existing facilities that
provide special education and replacing them with a system of resources that
enable existing regular state schools to meet the requirements of special needs
students. This policy was implemented without legislative change in 1998 but was
very quickly met with an application by parents of some special needs children to
the High Court of New Zealand for judicial review (Varnham, 2002). In the High
Court52, Baragwanath J found that there was a justiciable right to education to the
extent that such education must be suitable, regular and systematic. However, on
appeal to the Court of appeal53, it was held that the right of special needs
students is a right to an education system, and not to any substantive right to
education that is suitable, regular and systematic as indicated by Baragwanath J.
There are various issues regarding special education that are raised by this case,
but it is beyond the scope of this study to discuss them here. What needs to be
mentioned, however, is that legal obligations in respect of children with special
educational needs have almost universal application and may well eventually find
their way into all countries that claim to have developed nation status.
5.5.4 Students with Disabilities in England

There is now a greater awareness of protecting the rights of disabled people. As
seen in the earlier developed countries, there is some form of anti-discrimination
legislation that provides equal opportunity and access for people with disabilities.
52
Daniels v. Attorney-General (2002).
53
Attorney-General v. Daniels (2003).
118
England is no exception, with this area of law receiving increasing political

recognition.
The Disability Discrimination Act was enacted in (1995) (DDA) to complete a set
of anti-discrimination legislation alongside the Sex Discrimination Act (1975) and
the Race Relations Act (1976). The main objective of these statutes is to provide
immediate protection against discrimination on the grounds of disability.
Although the DDA applies to various fields of employment, one of the implications
for schools arising from this Act is that employers are obliged to appoint disabled
people who are deemed medically fit to teach. Also, reasonable adjustments as
defined under the DDA may have to be made to ensure that disabled teachers are
able to carry out their duties satisfactorily (Lowe, 2002). As far as disabled pupils
are concerned, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (2001) was
enacted to extend the DDA to pupils by placing two key duties on education
providers. The first duty is not to treat disabled pupils/prospective pupils less
favourably; and the second is to make reasonable adjustments to avoid putting
disabled pupils at a substantial disadvantage (Riddell, 2003, p. 64).
For pupils with special educational needs, the Education Act (1996) (EA 1996)
stipulates the duties of the Local Education Authority (LEA) with respect to this
group of children. It requires an LEA to identify and to determine the provision for
the special needs of any child in its area. The term used in the legislation for this
process is the statementing of children. In addition, the EA 1996 also
established the Special Educational Needs Tribunal (SENT), which is an
appellate body for appeals against LEA decisions (or lack of decisions) on
statementing of children with special educational needs. The legal members of
119
SENT are appointed by the Lord Chancellor, while the "lay" members are
appointed by the Secretary of State for Education (The Heads Legal Guide,
Croner, 1999). Since its establishment, SENT has heard numerous appeals. As
disabled people and parents continue to push for their rights, legislation and
policies concerning disability, anti-discrimination and special educational needs
will, arguably, be given increasing prominence.
5.5.5 Students with Disabilities in Canada

Our discussion so far reveals that the right of pupils with disabilities to have fair
access to special education in schools is an important issue. Similarly, in Canada,
legislation is enacted to provide some form of protection to pupils with
disabilities. For example, in Ontario, pupils who are in need of special education
are identified as exceptional. Where a pupil is exceptional, the law requires the
school to determine her placement, and have an individual plan for each
exceptional pupil. In most provinces, the school board is delegated the
responsibility to provide special education programmes and services. The actions
of the school board in this area are deemed as state actions and hence are
subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Brown & Zuker, 2002).
School boards are sometimes left in a quandary when some people argue that
failure to provide special treatment is discriminatory and others argue that the
provision of special treatment is, in itself, discriminatory (Brown & Zuker, 2002,
p. 298).
The issue of the integration of an exceptional pupil into a regular class of a

neighbourhood school was extensively dealt with in the case of Eaton v. Brant
County Board of Education, first heard by the Ontario Special Education Tribunal
120
in 1993. The parents of the exceptional child in this case had challenged the
boards decision to place their child in a special class rather than a regular class.
After a long drawn out legal tussle, the case reached the Supreme Court of
Canada, which held that in determining an appropriate placement of an
exceptional pupil, the best interests of the child are of paramount importance
(the Supreme Court of Canada in Eaton v Brant County Board of Education
[1997]). The Court agreed with the Tribunal that, having balanced the various
educational interests of the child, it was clear that her needs were best met in a
segregated classroom. The result of this case is that school boards now do not
have to overcome a legal presumption in favour of integration. So long as the
board can show evidence that its placement of an exceptional child meets the
best interests test, the boards assessment will be accepted by the tribunal or
court (Brown & Zuker, 2002). This is good news for school boards, for in a culture
of rights, where parents often seek to integrate special needs children into the
mainstream, this decision can help parents and schools to seek mutually
satisfactory solutions without protracted litigation in the courts.
5.5.6 Students with Disabilities in South Africa

Unlike the other commonwealth countries mentioned in this study, where legal
issues in education are becoming more and more prominent, legal issues in
education in South Africa are still relatively new, and it was the passing of the
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa in 1996 (the Constitution) that gave
several directives which had serious implications for education in this country.
The fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution (which contains the Bill of
Rights) include the following:
(1)
a free basic education for everyone financed out of state funds;
121
(2)
that a childs best interests are to be of paramount importance in every

matter concerning the child;
(3)
that everyone has the right not to be treated or punished in a cruel,

inhuman or degrading way and everyone has the right to have his
human dignity respected;
(4)
that the state (or a person) may not unfairly discriminate directly or
indirectly against anyone on grounds which include race, colour,
ethnicity, religion, culture and language; and
(5)
that a court, when interpreting the Bill of Rights, must have regard to
international law, and, in relation to the educators duty of care, and,
as to student safety, the most significant international law instrument
is that of the CRC.
It is not disputed that each of the constitutional rights mentioned at the beginning
of this section apply to children with disabilities. The National Education Policy
Act (1996) (NEPA) and the South African Schools Act (1996) (SASA) both make
provisions for all children to receive an education. The NEPA protects persons
against unfair discrimination within or by an education institution on any ground
whatsoever and ensures that all persons have basic education and equal access to
education institutions (Anderson, 2001). As regards SASA, public schools are
required under this legislation to admit all students and provide the necessary
educational requirements without discrimination. This suggests inclusive
education, which acknowledges and respects differences in children, whether due
to age, gender, ethnicity, language, class and disability. Further, to promote
constitutional democracy, an independent and impartial body, known as the South
African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), was also established. The SAHRC is
122
mandated to promote and protect human rights in South Africa by ensuring that
the provisions of the Bill of Rights are properly effected.
At the international level, besides ratifying the CRC, South Africa also looks to the
UN Standard Rules on the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with
Disabilities when making policies affecting people with disabilities (McClain,
2002). All this shows that at a constitutional and governmental level, the rights of
children with disabilities are given considerable attention. It is not within the
scope of this study to comment on the effectiveness of the legislation and policies
affecting the disabled in South Africa, but one might hope that all this will
translate into better lives for children with disabilities and it is clear that the
country is making a conspicuous attempt to address such issues head on.
In the following paragraphs, the legal issues surrounding the tort of negligence
discussed in Chapter Four will be reviewed. The issues fall under the headings of
student injuries, bullying, sexual misconduct of teachers and educational
malpractice.
5.6
School Safety Student Injuries and Negligence
5.6.1 Student Injuries in the US

A quick review of cases across jurisdictions of physical injuries suffered by
students while in school or on official outings shows an increasing willingness by
the courts to hold schools and educational authorities liable for negligence. Where
a student is hurt because of the inadequate supervision of teachers or the lack of
maintenance of school facilities or equipment, the student may have a valid cause
of action against the teacher for injury resulting from the teachers negligence.
123
Interestingly, in the US, even where it is found that a school has been negligent in
some way and as a result has caused an injury to a child, the school can rely on
the defence of governmental immunity to absolve itself from liability in a civil
action. In Whitney v. City of Worcester (1977), a child was struck by a door just
above his right eye and lost his vision. The school had been informed by the
janitor that the door had a defective closing mechanism but failed to rectify the
defect. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, while agreeing that the
child had a good cause of action, held that the school could not be made
responsible, as it is protected by governmental immunity in that state. The Court
further stated that it is the legislature that must change the government immunity
law and not the Court.
The doctrine of immunity originated from the old English law notion that The
King can do no wrong, the rationale being that an individual may not sue the
authority that granted the right to sue in the first place. Although in 1946 the
Federal Tort Claims Act (1946) was enacted to allow tort actions to be taken
against the federal government, the Act nevertheless contained several
restrictions on the types of claims that could be brought and under what
circumstances. In recent years, however, many states have passed legislation to
abolish governmental immunity, or where immunity is kept for the benefit of
teachers and administrators, such immunity is only available where the teacher
acted within the scope of the teachers employment (Fischer et al., 2003, p. 66).
Increasingly, the public and the courts are closely monitoring the standard of care
expected of them over children placed in their care.
124
5.6.2 Student Injuries in Australia

In 1910, what appears to be the first school-related negligence case was decided
in the case of Hole v. Williams (1910) in New South Wales. In that case, a teacher
was held to be negligent when he failed to provide a student with adequate safety
instructions concerning the carrying of a beaker of diluted sulphuric acid and, as a
result, another student was seriously burned. From 1910 onwards, there were not
very many school-related cases heard in the Australian courts. Students and
parents had, for various reasons, been reluctant to bring legal actions against
teachers and other school staff. These reasons include respect for the teaching
profession, cost of litigation, a lack of knowledge of legal rights and the
possibilities of being compensated, and students or families having their own
insurance cover for injury (Stewart, 1994). Another reason for the lack of court
cases during this period is that in order to avoid unwelcome publicity, education
departments of all Australian States and Territories tended to settle such matters
before they reached the courts (Stewart, 1998a). However, from the 1970s,
changing attitudes, greater demands for accountability and greater awareness of
legal rights and the means of enforcement led to a significant increase in the level
of court actions involving allegations of school or departmental negligence. These
negligence cases covered mainly the area of supervision, involving a wide range of
school activities, such as before and after school supervision, school excursions,
sports and classroom management (Stewart, 1998a, 1998b).
A welcomed decision by Australian educators on the standard of care expected by

the courts was heard by the High Court of Australia in 2005. In the case of
Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn
125
v. Hadba (2005)54, the majority of the High Court judges held that it is not
reasonable to have a system in which children are observed during particular
activities for every single moment of time as
it is damaging to teacher-pupil relationships by removing even the slightest
element of trust; it is likely to retard the development of responsibility in
children, and it is likely to call for a great increase in the number of
supervising teachers and in the costs of providing them (para. 25).
They also agreed with Spender, J. who in his dissenting judgment at the Court of
Appeal stage said to require a supervision system that is free of any risk "is a
requirement of unrealistic and impractical perfection. It is born of hindsight. It
offends the standard of reasonableness. It amounts to the imposition of the
responsibility of an insurer". This is a timely case which provides Australian schools
some guidance on the standard of care required by the courts in Australia where
the supervision of students is concerned; and the standard is one of
reasonableness, and not one that requires schools to insure the safety of
students.
5.6.3 Student Injuries in New Zealand

Unlike most jurisdictions, where liability for harm suffered by an individual is
based on the concept of fault to be established in the courts, the accident
compensation scheme in New Zealand since 1974 prohibits any actions for
compensatory damages for personal injury caused either by accident or
negligence. The result of this legislative framework is that there is a scarcity of
New Zealand case law on a schools liability for personal injuries suffered by
students at school or while under the schools control. In its present form it is
54
See page 81 for summary of the case.
126
contained in the Accident Insurance Act (1998)55 which has as its aim to maintain a
no-fault, comprehensive, insurance based scheme to rehabilitate and compensate
persons who suffer personal injury. (Varnham, 2001a, p. 80). Schools in New
Zealand are, therefore, immune from actions for damages in the law of negligence
as far as physical safety is concerned. Although this scheme has received general
acceptance in the country, many have also felt that the payouts under this nofault scheme are inadequate.
In Donselaar v. Donselaar (1982), the New Zealand Court of Appeal56 established

that the courts may grant exemplary (or punitive) damages in personal injury
cases. The reasoning given was that such damages arise out of the conduct of the
defendant and not from the injury to the plaintiff. Such damages will be awarded
where the defendants conduct is so flagrantly and outrageously careless as to
justify an award of damages by way of punishment (McLaren Transport Ltd v.
Sommerville [1996]). What this means for schools in New Zealand is that a
student who suffers injury as a result of a schools negligence may be able to
claim exemplary damages if it is shown that the school conducted itself in such a
way that there was reckless disregard for the students safety. The courts would
likely hold that such conduct merits condemnation and punishment, and award
exemplary damages in addition to the compensation paid under the no-fault
compensation scheme. However, the courts are also aware that potential
claimants may claim exemplary damages as a backdoor method of obtaining
55
Its now the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 (IPRC) which was
passed in September 2001. The majority of the provisions in the Act did not come into force until 1
April 2002. This means that the new entitlements, for example lump sum compensation, can only be
paid for injuries that occur on or after 1 April 2002.
56
The next level of appeal would be the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council located in London.
However, the Supreme Court of New Zealand replaced the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
from 1 January 2004 Section 3 of the Supreme Court Act 2003.
127
compensation for personal injuries and are thus very cautious not to give
exemplary damages merely because the statutory benefits may be considered
inadequate.
It is precisely for the purpose of curbing the expansion of exemplary damages

claims for personal injury that the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and
Compensation Act (2001) was passed. This Act allows for lump sum payments to
be made to persons who suffer actual loss of bodily function, up to a maximum
payout of $100,000 (Hay-Mackenzie & Wilshire, 2002).
Health and Safety in New Zealand Schools

The running of each state and integrated school is devolved to a body known as
the school board. This was one of the results of the educational reform (known as
the Tomorrows Schools) that took place in New Zealand in 1989, that is, to
enable school boards to exercise a large degree of autonomy. In return for this
autonomy, the school boards not only have the ultimate legal responsibility for
students in their care, but, as employers under the Health and Safety Employment
Amendment Act (2002) (HSEA), they have the responsibility for the health and
safety of employees, students and other visitors to the school. In the context of
physical safety, although schools are immune from actions for damages in the law
of negligence under the accident compensation scheme, school boards may
potentially be criminally liable under the HSEA. School boards must take all
practicable steps to ensure that an employee undertaking any work activity does
not harm any other person. For schools, non-compliance with HSEA could arise
where equipment is not safely or properly installed or maintained. Another
implication of the HSEA is where a teacher fails to prevent an accident that can
128
be prevented or fails to provide adequate supervision of an activity at school or

during a school excursion. An example is seen in the case of Christian Youth
Camps v. Department of Labour (2000). The incident in this case happened during
a school trip. The organisation that operated a waterslide had placed a chain at
the bottom of the slide to prevent trespassers from using it. A ten year old boy
used the slide before camp operator removed the chain. The child suffered a
concussion, neck injuries, chipped teeth and a bitten tongue when he struck the
chain. The operator pleaded guilty and was fined under the HSEA. However,
what was interesting about this case was the judges sentencing notes, which said
that the boys school could have been made a second defendant. This implies
that the court was of the view that the school had breached the standard of care
required under the HSEA when carrying out its supervisory duties.
Another piece of legislation which may have potential implications for schools as
far as safety is concerned is the Criminal Justice Act (1985). Under section 26 of
this Act, where a party is convicted of an offence that arises out of an act or
omission, and physical or emotional harm is suffered by another person, a court
will impose a fine. When imposing the fine, the court may consider whether it
should award, by way of compensation to the victim, the whole or any part of the
fine. This is another means by which the courts can compensate a victim of a
personal injury over and above the allowances payable under the Accident
Compensation Scheme (Hay-Mackenzie & Wilshire, 2002, p. 54). In the Christian
Youth Camp case mentioned above, the entire amount of the fine ($6,500 reduced
from $30,000 on appeal) was awarded to the child.
129
5.6.4 Student Injuries in England

The common law in England is very well-established, and many commonwealth
jurisdictions look to English case law for legal principles and precedents when
dealing with cases of their own. The teachers common law standard of care was
described as early as 1893 in the case of Williams v. Eady57 where the court held
that the teacher is expected to take care of his students as a careful father would
take care of his children. This case was the starting point of the concept of in loco
parentis (in place of the parents), which has since been used in many
jurisdictions. From the 1890s to 1960s, the traditional approach in England to the
standard of care in preventing injury on school premises was to look at the normal
practice in schools and at home across the country (Palfreyman, 2001). The
attitude of the courts during that period is summed up as follows: A balance must
be struck between the meticulous supervision of children every moment at school
and the desirable object of encouraging sturdy independence as they grow up
(Jeffrey v. London CC (1954). In this case, a five-year-old boy was killed after
falling through a glass roof which he had climbed onto. The parents argued that
children should have been supervised until they were collected but the Court
concluded that although this would be true in the case of children in the nursery,
it was not necessary or reasonably expected for children five and above. In later
cases, however, the courts have recognised that attempting to equate the role of
the reasonable parent with that of the teacher may not be without difficulties.
First, the teacher has many times more children than the parents to control and
supervise at any one time. Second, children are exposed, as part of the education
57
In this case, Williams was burned when another pupil got hold of a bottle of phosphorus, put a
match to it and shook it up. The bottle naturally exploded. The bottle of phosphorus was kept with
other bottles and equipment, including cricket gear. The room was locked but the pupils had easy
access to the key.
130
process, to risks they would not face elsewhere. In Lyes v. Middlesex County
Council (1962), the judge said:
I hold that the standard (of care) is that of a reasonably prudent parent
judged not in the context of his own home but in that of a school, in other
words, a person exhibiting the responsible mental qualities of a prudent
parent in the circumstances of school life. School life happily differs from
home life (p. 446).
Thus, if the Jeffrey case were to be decided today, the attitude of the courts may
well be different, bearing in mind the environment of the school and how teachers
are expected to foresee risks and safeguard against potential problems. Where the
safety of children in schools is concerned, the English courts are now more likely
to define the standard of care in terms of what a reasonable and responsible
teacher will do in similar circumstances, instead of simply making a comparison of
the duty with the notion of in loco parentis (Lowe, 2002). This view is shared by
Boyd (1998, p. 480-483), who defines the modern approach of standard of care as
the expansion of the prudent parent test to the reasonably competent
professional in loco parentis test. In other words,
it would seem that the trained and experienced teacher, well used to the
behaviour of children en masse, might be expected to provide a higher
standard of care even than a reasonably careful and prudent (but
untrained) parent could achieve in supervising 20 or more of his/her own
children(!) (Palreyman, 2001, p. 231).
While the duty to ensure the physical safety of children in schools is beyond
dispute, the question arises as to whether this duty extends to ensuring that
children do not suffer any harm, physically or psychologically, from bullying that
131
occurs on the school premises. This is an issue that has arisen in many countries
and England is equally confronted by it.
Other Statutory Duties Concerning Safety of the Child

In addition to common law duties and the SSFA 1998, there are other statutory
duties that should be mentioned. The first is the Health and Safety at Work Act
(1974), which sets out guidelines to ensure that all school authorities in England
provide a safe environment for employees and visitors of the school. Under this
Act, the employer has a mandatory duty to take care of the health, safety and
welfare of those who work in the school or who visit it, as far as it is reasonably
practicable (Kaye, 2003).
The Health And Safety At Work Act 1974

The scope of the Health and Safety At Work Act (1974) (HSAWA 1974) is very
wide but for the purposes of this discussion, this section will only look at the
aspects that relate to schools. The HSAWA 1974 and its regulations impose on
Local Education Authorities (LEA)(democratically elected local councils
responsible for providing education in their areas), private school proprietors,
senior post holders in schools and all teachers a duty to take care of the health,
safety and welfare of the teachers and pupils in schools. LEAs are required to keep
a school healthy and safe so far as is reasonably practicable (Lowe, 2002). The
requirements of the HSAWA 1974 as summarised in The Heads Legal Guide
(Croner, 1999) are as follows:
(a)
that all employers are to adopt health and safety policies and to set precise
standards guiding the use of certain types of machinery and equipment in schools;
132
(b)
that employers are to provide detailed guidance to their employees (this guidance
may be used to determine the standard of reasonableness);

(c)
that criminal penalties will be imposed for breach of its provisions;
(d)
that new systems of enforcement of safety requirements be introduced and the
Health and Safety Inspectorate is empowered to demand repairs or improvements or order

that equipment or premises may not be used.
The standard of care required by the HSAWA 1974 clearly reinforces the common
law duty to behave reasonably. The only addition to the common law standard of
care is the requirement that regulations are made and guidance given as to how
the duty is to be performed in the use of equipment or materials of known risk. In
doing so, teachers are then better able to take reasonable care of their own
health and safety as well as the health and safety of others at work. Therefore, so
long as teachers show a proper regard for their own and others health and safety,
it would be difficult to find them negligent or criminally liable if something did go
wrong (Lowe, 2002).
Two other statutes that have a bearing on the safety of students in the schools in
England are the Occupiers Liability Act (1984) (first enacted in 1957) and the
Standards for School Premises Regulations (1972) (first enacted in 1959). In the
case of Reffell v. Surrey County Council (1964), the plaintiff, twelve years of age,
was a student at a school which had been built about 1919 and was a school
controlled and maintained by the LEA. As she was walking quickly along a corridor,
she put out her hand to stop a swing door that was swinging towards her. Her hand
went through the glass panel of the door and she was injured. The plaintiff
claimed damages for breach of statutory duty under the Occupiers Liability Act
(1957) and the Standards for School Premises Regulations (1959). The court held
133
that there was a breach of the duty under the Standards for School Premises
Regulations (1959) in that the glass panel was made of materials and properties
that were not of such a standard that the safety of the occupants was reasonably
assured. The court also held that there was a breach of a duty of care under the
Occupiers Liability Act (1957). Damages were awarded.
5.6.5 Student Injuries in Canada

The education statutes across Canada demonstrate a concern for the health and
welfare of pupils. Most provincial statutes and regulations stipulate specific
duties, such as the duty to supervise pupils, inspect equipment, provide
ventilation and ensure cleanliness. Where specific provisions are absent, one
would find the statutory obligation for the principal or teacher to maintain order
and discipline in the school. This is seen by the courts in Canada to be sufficient
to establish a statutory duty of care (Brown & Zuker, 2002). Besides a statutory
duty of care, the common law clearly establishes a duty of care by teachers
toward pupils in their charge. Where the supervision of children is concerned, the
Canadian courts look to English law. The standard of care expected of teachers is
that of a careful or prudent parent, a standard that was established in Williams
v. Eady58 and this standard has served as the starting point of almost all Canadian
school negligence cases (Giles, 1988; Brown & Zuker, 2002). However, in 1968, the
case of Mckay v. Board of Govan School Unit No. 29 Saskatchewan (1968)
(Mckay) saw a shifting standard of care. In Mckay, the Supreme Court of Canada
(the highest court of the land) had to deal with the issue of whether a physical
education instructor had a higher duty of care toward pupils than the traditional
prudent parent standard. In this case, a student who had minimal experience on
58
See previous section Student Injuries in England for a summary of this case.
134
the parallel bars was severely injured when he attempted a dismount. Although
the Supreme Court held that the careful father test was the applicable test in
this case, it went on to state that in some situations, a higher standard of care
than that of the careful parent can apply. Some cases subsequent to Mckay saw
the courts applying higher standards of care such as the reasonably skilled
physical education instructor test and the reasonably prudent sewing teacher
test when establishing liability (MacKay & Dickinson, 1998, p. 37; Brown & Zuker,
2002, p. 98). The standard of care exhibited by teachers will no doubt continue to
be scrutinised by the courts in Canada as they attempt to correctly define and
extend the careful parent rule.
5.6.6 Student Injuries in South Africa

As noted earlier, one of the principles in the Constitution of South Africa is that
the best interest of the child is of paramount importance in all matters concerning
the child. The notion of the best interests of the child is interpreted very strictly
when determining the rights of the child in the education context. The scope of
the duty of care of educators in respect of the childs safety in school includes not
only the physical safety but also the psychological safety of the child (De Waal,
2002). Further, as educators are deemed to be professionals, their conduct is
judged according to the degree of care expected of one who is trained and
experienced in handling students and such a duty cannot be taken over by a
childs parent. In Minister of Education and Culture v. Azel and Another (1995),
Azel, whilst still a minor and a student, was transported on a school tour by a Mrs
J., a biology teacher, employed by the Minister of Education. Azel was seriously
injured in a motor car accident due to Mrs Js negligent driving. As Azels mother
had signed a letter of indemnity that excluded the schools liability for medical
135
and other costs incurred by the parent, she did not file a suit. However, on
obtaining majority, Azel instituted action against the Minister of Education and
won. The Minister appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal (the final court of
appeal in all non-constitutional matters) but the Supreme Court upheld the lower
courts decision to award damages to Azel. The significance of this judgment is
that even if parents sign indemnity forms to waive their childrens rights to safety,
care and recourse, the constitutional approach of a childs best interests are of
paramount importance would override the effectiveness of the forms and treat
the parents action as one that is detrimental to the child (Oosthuizen, 2002, p.
178).
5.7
Bullying in Schools
5.7.1 Bullying in the US

School violence has escalated over recent years in the US, and federal lawmakers
have reacted to the problems of violence by passing regulations intended to make
schools safer. Two such laws are the Gun-Free Schools Act (1994) (GFSA) and
the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act of (1994) (SDFSCA). Under
the GFSA, all states receiving federal education funding are required to pass laws
mandating school districts to expel, for at least a year, any student bringing a gun
to school. The SDFSCA provides federal assistance to schools and even non profit
organisations to prevent school violence, provide training and technical
assistance, fund violence education programmes and deter the use of illegal drugs
and alcohol (Yell & Katsiyannis, 2001). Recent US Supreme Court cases have shown
that the Courts, although recognising the constitutional rights of students in public
schools in relation to such matters as privacy, have tended to promote the cause
of a safe environment. Thus, a students right to privacy gives way to a schools
136
duty to maintain a safe environment (Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton

[1995]). This was confirmed in the later case of Board of Education of
Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County et al. v. Earls et al
(2002) where the Court of Appeal upheld the Vernonia principle that a student's
privacy interest is limited in a public school environment where the State is
responsible for maintaining discipline, health, and safety.
Some cases of school violence are closely related to bullying, which result in
serious injuries and in some instances even suicides. A law magazine in
Washington, Trial (The Bully Pulpit, 2002) reports that lawsuits over bullying
have been increasing significantly since 1997. However, owing to the doctrine of
governmental immunity (which is discussed below) the success of such cases is
rare. Despite the lack of judicial decisions in this area, lawyers in America believe
that this is an emerging area of law. The fact that at least a dozen states in
America have enacted anti-bullying legislation requiring schools to train teachers
and students about harassment and to report incidents of bullying clearly supports
this view. Schools will not be liable if a student bullies another student per se, but
a school will be liable if, having the knowledge about the bullying, it fails to act
(Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1997)59).
5.7.2 Bullying in Australia

Legal actions arising out of bullying in Australian schools escalated in the late
1990s. The types of school bullying involved taunting, homosexual vilification,
physical attacks, abuse, sexual harassment and combinations of these (Bothe,
1997). As the effects of bullying on both the bully and the victim can be extremely
59
See next section - Bullying in New Zealand for a discussion of this case.
137
negative, schools, school authorities and supervising teachers can be liable for
failing to discharge their duty of care. The cases in Australia show a common
trend, where the victim alleged that the school failed to respond to complaints or
information about the bullying, thus resulting in injury. One example is the case of
Haines v. Warren (1987). This case involved a 15 year old boy studying in a
coeducational school in Sydney, who was a known bully. One morning, during
recess, while on the school grounds, he picked up a 15 year old girl and dropped
her onto a block of concrete. As a result, she hurt her spine and suffered severe
back injuries. Although teachers were on playground supervision duties, not one
was placed in a position to see what was going in the area where the incident took
place. Further, even though the boy was known to be a bully and had a history of
acting aggressively towards others on previous occasions, none of the incidents
were officially reported. The Court of Appeal, by a majority, agreed with the trial
judge that the school had failed to take reasonable care to prevent the
foreseeable risk of injury. The failure on the schools part had probably led the
bully to believe that his behaviour was acceptable. The plaintiff was awarded
$250 000 in damages.
In 2007, what is believed to be the biggest school bullying damages award of

approximately one million dollars was awarded to a young man in the New South
Wales case of Cox v. State of New South Wales (2007). Evidence was given in
court as to how the victim, Ben Cox, was bullied over an eighteen month period
since the age of six by an older student. The bullying involved repeated assaults
and harassment and at one point, Ben had a tooth knocked out and was made to
eat his jumper. Ben suffered headaches, nightmares and consequential
138
psychiatric problems but the dual attempt to seek assistance from the Education
Department only ended up with the advice that bullying builds character.
Both cases reinforce an authors view that schools in Australia are now under
considerable pressure, both from legal and moral perspectives, to take active
steps to minimise the risk of bullying by setting up systems of training,
communication, monitoring, review and enforcement. Inactivity or insufficient
activity may result in legal liability (Bothe, 1997, p. 162).
5.7.3 Bullying in New Zealand

One safety issue of major concern that has recently emerged in New Zealand
schools is that of peer harassment in the form of bullying. Due to the accident
compensation scheme discussed earlier, the ability of parents or students to sue a
school for damages, say, for negligence in failing to prevent bullying, is severely
limited since compensatory awards for personal injury are barred. However,
where a student suffers a mental injury (for example, post traumatic stress
disorder) as a result of sustained psychological bullying at school, he or she will be
able to sue the school for compensatory damages based on the common law
principles of negligence, since the accident compensation scheme will not apply
to his case. Non-physical bullying in the form of verbal harassment, such as namecalling or loud public comment on physical characteristics, clearly exposes the
victim to harmful consequences that can potentially cause mental injury.
According to Hay-Mackenzie (2002), the increased use of the internet in schools
also raises the potential for damages claims based on mental trauma suffered by
students who are exposed to bullying in the form of email, text messaging and the
like.
139
The Education Act (1989) (Section 77) requires schools to take all reasonable steps
to ensure not only that individual students receive guidance and counselling, but
also that the students parents are informed of any factors that are impeding that
students educational progress. This section thus raises the possibility that the
schools duty extends to actual consultation with parents in relation to factors
such as bullying and harassment, which may act as an impediment to a childs
education (Varnham, 1999). In other words, a school may be held to be negligent
if it fails to take adequate steps to eliminate anti-social behaviour, which in turn
adversely affects a childs education. Victims of bullying may also potentially
allege discrimination against the schools.
The anti-discrimination legislation in New Zealand is contained in the Human

Rights Act (1993) (HRA). The applicable section for schools is Section 57, which
prohibits discrimination in all educational establishments. This section states
that it is unlawful for an educational establishment to subject a student to any
detriment by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination. The
prohibited grounds are set out in Section 21 of the HRA and they include sex and
sexual orientation, religious and ethical belief, colour, race, ethnic or national
origins and physical impairment and disability (Varnham, 1999). Further, Section
62 of the HRA deals specifically with sexual harassment and it applies even to
education.
It is posited by Varnham (1999 and 2001b) that the anti-discrimination provisions

of the HRA may apply to a school in the area of bullying in that generally, students
who are victims of bullying are singled out because of their difference, for
140
example, their race, colour, sexual orientation, disability or physical impairment.

Therefore, where a school has failed to take remedial action in a bullying
situation, it is very possible that a complaint under the anti-discrimination
legislation will be made.
In 2001, New Zealand experienced a wake up call about bullying from the case of
Queen v. Castles (2000) (Taradale Broomstick Case). In an extreme case of
bullying, some boys sexually violated a fellow student with a broomstick on the
premise that it was a rugby prank. The incident occurred away from the school at
a private party and the school was not implicated in terms of liability. However,
the parents of the victim laid a formal complaint with the school about the way it
handled matters after the incident and about previous alleged bullying incidents
at the school (Complaint Laid, 2002). An argument that could have been
forwarded by the parents of the victim in the Taradale Broomstick Case was that
the school had subjected their child to detriment within the educational
environment by failing to deal with their childs complaints of harassment and in
doing so, the school had breached the anti-discrimination legislation. In this
regard, the principles set out by the US Supreme Court in the case of Davis v.
Monroe County Board of Education (1997) (Davis) provide clear indication of the
factors that may be argued by victims to establish liability in New Zealand. The
case of Davis concerned anti-discrimination legislation similar to the New Zealand
HRA and a schools liability in respect of peer harassments. In that case, the
victim of harassment and her mother had complained to the teacher and school
principal frequently over a period of some years of the bullying that was taking
place, but the school had failed to take remedial action. The Supreme Court by a
majority held that in order for a school to be liable, two factors must be
141
established: (1) the school has shown deliberate indifference and by doing so, the
school has subjected the victim student to discrimination; (2) the harassment
must have been so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it deprives
the student of educational opportunities. Applying these principles, it can be
argued that a school in New Zealand will be liable under the HRA if the school has
actual knowledge of the bullying, and is in the position to take remedial action
but fails to do so, and if the bullying is of such a severe nature that it deprives the
victim student from an effective educational experience.
5.7.4 Bullying in England

It is shown so far that school bullying is a widespread phenomenon and is a
prevalent problem in many societies across the world. The school, being seen as
the agents of social control (Furniss, 2000, p. 13) would have a moral duty to
manage and reduce bullying problems in schools. In the case of Bradford-Smart v.
West Sussex County Council (2001)(Bradford-Smart), the plaintiff had been
bullied between the ages of 9 and 12 while she was a pupil at a primary school
under the charge of West Sussex County Council. The bullying took place mainly
on the bus going to and from school. Applying the principles laid down in Phelps
(see Chapter one and the section on Educational Malpractice below), the judge
held that teachers owed a duty in relation to their pupils to exercise the skill and
care of a reasonable teacher on the basis of what would have been acceptable to
reasonable members of the teaching profession (Bradford-Smart, 2001, para.
30). In this case, the plaintiffs class teacher had taken reasonable steps to
prevent her from being bullied while at school, and that was sufficient to relieve
the defendant from liability. However, the trial judge held, and the Court of
Appeal concurred, that it is fair, just and reasonable to place a duty on the school
142
to take such steps as were necessary to ensure that a pupil was not bullied while
on the school premises, or possibly even in school activities outside school
premises. It can be argued that this ruling is consistent with the provisions in the
Human Rights Act (1998) (HRA 1998), which incorporates into the domestic law
of England the Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (1950)
(ECHR). Article 3 reads No one shall be subject to torture or to inhumane or
degrading treatment or punishment. It is thus possible that public bodies such
as schools can be held responsible for violations of Art. 3 by private actors (Parry
& Parry, 2000, p. 283).
Apart from case law and the implications of the HRA 1998, the responsibilities for
dealing with pupil behaviour and discipline are also set out in legislation called
the School Standards and Framework Act (1998) (SSFA 1998). Section 61 of the
SSFA 1998 stipulates that the head teacher must determine measures
encouraging good behaviour and respect for others on the part of pupils, and, in
particular, preventing all forms of bullying among pupils. In doing so, the head
teacher must have regard to the policies and written principles produced by the
governing body (Section 61, SSFA 1998). The policies and principles are mainly in
the form of guidelines designed to promote good behaviour and discipline among
pupils and the head teacher and parents must be consulted before these are made
or revised (Harris, 2002).
5.7.5 Bullying in Canada

As discussed in earlier sections, bullying is a problem that permeates every
society, and many educators and parents may even feel that it is part and parcel
of the process of growing up. It is no different in Canada, except that the
143
Canadian Courts are beginning to see more liability claims involving school bullying
(Anderson & Fraser, 2002). In Board of Education for the City of Toronto v. Higgs
(1959), the issue was whether the school was negligent in failing to provide
adequate supervision, thereby resulting in a student being injured by another
student bully. The Supreme Court of Canada was not convinced that increased
supervision would have prevented the incident, so it was held that there was no
liability on the part of the school. However, the Court indicated that if the school
had known the mischievous tendencies of the bully, the position may have been
different, since the range of foreseeable risks would be expanded (Mackay &
Dickinson, 1998).
Cases of bullying in Canada have escalated since 1959, and they range from
passive participation to vicious attacks leading to death. In 1983, a student was
jailed for four years for standing by with a club on his shoulder while his brother
and a friend beat and maimed a student60. In 1998, students were suspended for
five days for not only watching a gang assault at school, but also providing
encouragement and added intimidation61. The case of R. v. Glowatski (2001) saw
the cruel bullying of Reena Virk that led to her horrific death. In that case, Reena
was despised because she was not one of the in group and one day, a group of
teens (mostly girls) attacked her to show their dislike of her. The attack was
unprovoked and extensive. Reena was kicked, jumped on, beaten, burned with a
lit cigarette and finally held down by two of the attackers in a bay to drown. This
case may an extreme case, but a study of the many cases involving bullying in
schools in Canada shows that bullying is a very real risk for students, and it is a
60
R. v. Keizer (1983).
61
Hopkins (Guardian ad litem of) v. Mission School District No. 75 (1998).
144
problem for which neither the legal nor the educational system has found
sufficient solutions (Anderson & Fraser, 2002, p. 193).
5.7.6 Bullying in South Africa

In a conference paper presented in the University of Granada by Professor Nita
Corene De Wet in 2005, it was shown that bullying, to a lesser or greater extent,
is a problem at most schools in South Africa (De Wet, 2005). The Childrens
Movement and the Childrens Resource Centre in South Africa also has an ongoing
anti-bullying campaign that develops and implements practical steps within the
Childrens Movement to stop bullying among children (Childrens Resource Centre,
n.d.). Knowing the importance of managing bullying in schools, the North West
Education Department announced, in January 2007, that a School Safety
Conference would be held to educate and assist teachers on aspects of school
safety, including the effects of bullying among students, so as to build a safer
school environment in South Africa (Ntuane, 2007).
5.8
Sexual Misconduct of Teachers
5.8.1 Sexual Misconduct in the US

An area of injury that has crept into the law of negligence is that of sexual
misconduct by teachers in schools. The question has that arisen is whether a
school could be held liable for sexual assaults committed on students by a
teacher. One only needs to go into Google, type Sexual misconduct in schools,
and find millions of articles and reports on the issue. Sexual misconduct in schools
has become a problem that has even reached the courts in many jurisdictions.
145
In 2004, the US Department of Education contracted an academic to conduct a

study to determine the prevalence of educator sexual misconduct in the US62.
Allegations of sexual misconduct are now reported by journalists and these stories
lead to more public awareness of the problem. For example, in February 2003
alone, eleven incidents were reported in the newspapers63 in the US, and they
represent only a small sample of incidents that come to the attention of school
and law enforcement officials. The rise in incidents of teacher sexual misconduct
has given cause for school officials to develop a more formative and proactive
approach to monitoring and shaping appropriate teacher-student relations beyond
the initial employment phase, regardless of gender (Sutton, 2004, p. 8).
5.8.2 Sexual Misconduct in Australia

In Australia, whether a school could be held liable for sexual assaults committed
on students by a teacher is a controversial issue. Where personal injury is
concerned, the High Court of Australia (the highest court in Australia) has held in
Commonwealth v. Introvigne (1982) (Introvigne) that a school has a non62
Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature. Prepared for the US Department
of Education, Office of the Under Secretary Policy and Program Studies Service by Charol Shakeshaft,
Hofstra University and Interactive, Inc. Huntington, N.Y. (Web source:
http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf).
63
Henderson, N.C.: The Henderson Count School Board agrees to pay $1.78 million to the families
of 17 children who are alleged sexual victims of a former teacher assistant.
Augusta, Wisc.: Family alleges sexual assault of 12 year old boy by male teacher.
Ann Arbor, Mich.: Male high school teacher assaults female student.
Indiana: Former principal of a Baptist school to be sentenced for taking an 11 year old female
student across country to have sex with her.
Omaha, Neb.: Wrestling coach sentenced to 45 days in jail and required to apologize publicly to
female student he assaulted.
Sarasota, Fla.: Former female high school assistant coach pleads no contest to unlawful sexual
activity and committing a lewd and lascivious act with two students on her basketball and softball
teams.
Westminster, Colo.: Male coach gets six years in prison for sexually assaulting seven girls on his
softball team. Amelia, Ohio: Former male high school administrative assistant gets 18 month
sentence for having sex with female high school student.
Hackensack, N.J.: 42 year old female middle school teacher admits sexual intercourse with sixth
grade male student.
Yonkers, N.Y.: 50 year old make Montessori teacher fondles 7 year old student in bathroom.
Bullhead City, Ariz.:Male ESL teacher has sexual contact with 12 year old female student. Teacher
is a registered sex offender in Florida. (These case summaries are taken from the Report in footnote
26).
146
delegable duty to take all reasonable care to provide an adequate system so that
no child is exposed to unnecessary risk of injury. The issue that has arisen here is
whether the non-delegable duty as set out in Introvigne should be extended to
intentional criminal acts committed by teachers. As there was a conflict of
opinion between the Court of Appeal of New South Wales and the Court of Appeal
of Queensland, the cases involving this issue were brought to the High of Australia
for resolution (New South Wales v. Lepore; Samin v. Queensland; Rich v.
Queensland [2003]) (Lepore).
The three cases arose out of allegations that teachers had sexually assaulted
students at school. In the New South Wales case, Lepore was a seven year old
pupil who alleged that he had been sexually assaulted by a teacher in the context
of punishment for misbehaviour, while Rich and Samin were pupils at a oneteacher state school in rural Queensland between 1963 and 1965. They were
between seven and ten years old when the alleged assaults (during school hours in
the classroom or adjoining rooms) took place. The judgment of the High Court was
delivered on 6 February 2003 and it laid down serious implications for schools and
school authorities in Australia in respect of their duty of care towards the safety
of students. To summarise, the High Court analysed in detail the circumstances
under which the school or school authority will have a non-delegable duty of care
as opposed to situations where vicarious liability may be imposed for injuries
sustained by a student in a school. A non-delegable duty of care involves the
imposition of strict liability upon the person or organisation that owes that duty
for foreseeable harm. In other words, it is a liability that the person or
organisation must assume in the event of injury, even if it had engaged a qualified
and ostensibly competent person to carry out some or all of its function and
147
duties. In the case of vicarious liability, an employer (for example, a school

authority) will only be liable if the offending act of the teacher was authorised by
the school authority or if the act was within the scope of the teachers
employment. However, what the Court had to deal with here was the more
difficult question of whether unauthorised acts of the teacher can be said to be so
connected with the authorised acts for which the school authority should be held
vicariously liable.
In Lepore, the High Court held that a school cannot be held liable for an
intentional act of one of its teachers on the basis of non-delegable duty. However,
a school can be held vicariously liable for a teachers act (e.g. sexual assault) if a
close enough connection between the act and the employment can be established.
This is a complex legal issue and it is not within the scope of this study to discuss
it in detail, although two cases heard by the Supreme Court of Canada (see below)
do provide some guidelines for schools. For now, both Justice Atkinsons
comments (see section on Educational Malpractice) and the High Courts judgment
clearly point to the fact that the law will continue to have an increasing impact on
schools and professional educators in Australia in the coming years.
5.8.3 Sexual Misconduct in New Zealand

It is posited by Varnham (1999 and 2001b) that the anti-discrimination provisions
of the Human Rights Act (1993) (as seen in section on Bullying in New Zealand
above) may also apply to a school in the area of sexual abuse, in that in a
situation involving the sexual abuse of a student by a teacher, the school could
face an action under the anti-discrimination legislation where it could be shown
148
that the school had failed to take remedial action when informed of a sexual or
any misconduct by a teacher in respect of a student.
The Mahurangi College case in New Zealand was a case involving the sexual abuse
of several female students by a teacher and sports coach at the school over the
period 1978 to 1995. The teacher, Leigh, was a paedophile, who was sexually
attracted to adolescent female students. From 1983 onwards, various teachers
and other personnel were alerted to Leighs behaviour, but the school responded
in a half-hearted and dismissive manner. After a formal complaint was lodged
with the School Board, disciplinary procedures were instigated against Leigh. In
1996 Leigh was charged with 28 offences involving violation and indecent assault.
He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 17 years imprisonment. Two of the
students who alleged abuse complained to the Human Rights Commission for
breach of the HRA and were paid a settlement sum by the college. In failing to
take remedial action when faced with allegations by a student of sexual
misconduct by a teacher, the school had acted in a manner that was
discriminatory, in that it subjected a student to detriment on the basis of gender,
which is a prohibited ground of discrimination under the HRA (Varnham, 2000).
The inaction of the school had the effect of creating a hostile or abusive school
environment, which basically deprived the student of a proper educational
opportunity. One of the outcomes of this case was an inquiry carried out by the
Commissioner of Children, and the Commissioners findings are discussed below.
Varnham, (2001b) believes that if a situation arises where sexual abuse of a
student is perpetuated by a teacher, a school could similarly face an action under
the anti-discrimination legislation.
149
On a positive note, the Education Standards Act (2001) (ESA) is enacted to

amend the Education Act (1989) and its aim is to improve standards across the
education sector. It includes the establishment of the New Zealand Teachers
Council, which replaces the former Teachers Registration Board. This new Council
is given a wider professional leadership and quality mandate, including mandatory
police vetting for teachers who are not registered and for other non-teaching staff
at schools and early childhood institutions. In the context of safety in schools,
this new Council has wider powers to receive and inquire into complaints of
misconduct when it has reasonable grounds to believe that a school employer is
not able to deal satisfactorily with the issues. The ESA also provides for a range of
statutory interventions that may be used by the Ministry of Education to avert
risks in schools. One such intervention is the introduction of mandatory reporting
by employers about specified matters of concern. The Ministry of Education is
also given the power to require the School Board to engage specialist help or to
prepare and carry out an action plan. There is even power to appoint a statutory
manager to take over the functions that the board is not able to manage without
dismissing the board (Breakwell, 2002; Varnham, 2001c). There are other forms of
statutory intervention that are aimed at addressing specific problems, but all
these interventions can only be triggered where there are reasonable grounds to
believe that there is a risk to the operation of the school or the welfare or
educational performance of its students and such intervention is reasonable to
deal with the risk without intervening more than necessary in the affairs of the
school (Section 78I(2) & (4), Education Act [1989]).
A useful feature of the ESA is the ability of school boards to request formal
intervention or assistance before any problem becomes entrenched. As a result,
150
feedback has suggested that the boards feel more in control of the situation, more
able to manage any community fallout and keep relationships positive. The
education system has moved towards the setting of standards and the possibility
of early intervention, and the self identification of problems has led to a
partnership approach to real improvement (Breakwell, 2002).
5.8.4 Sexual Misconduct in England

Teachers are vulnerable to accusations of abuse because of their daily contact
with children in a variety of situations. Their proximity to and relationships with
pupils may lead to allegations against them being made by pupils or even parents.
However, as seen above, there are many genuine cases of sexual misconduct by
teachers. Therefore school procedures for handling suspected cases of abuse in
England include procedures to be followed if a teacher or other member of staff is
accused of abuse (Lowe, 2002). Like section 153 of the Criminal Code of Canada
1985 (see next section on Sexual Misconduct in Canada), the Sexual Offences
(Amendment) Act (2000) in England makes it an offence of abuse of trust if
teachers and other school staff have any sexual activity with someone below 18
years of age.
Although generally, teachers are personally liable for such abuse of trust, it will
be recalled in Chapter Four, that schools and education authorities could be held
vicariously liable for the intentional wrong of its employees where certain criteria
are satisfied - Lister v. Hesley Hall (2002)64. In this particular case, the victims
were boys aged 12 to 15 staying in a boarding house owned and managed by
Hesley Hall Ltd. The warden of the boarding house exercised such control over the
64
See Chapter Four page 90.
151
boys that eventually, it led to sexual assaults on some of the boys. The House of
Lords found Hesley Hall vicariously liable for the assaults of the warden because
Hesley Hall placed the warden in such a special position that a close connection
between the wardens duties and his wrongdoing can be established.
5.8.5 Sexual Misconduct in Canada

Legal principles from two Supreme Court cases provide some guidelines for school
leaders in Canada where sexual misconduct in schools is concerned. In Bazley v.
Curry (1999) (Bazley) and Jacobi v. Griffiths (1999) (Jacobi), the Supreme
Court of Canada had the difficult task of deciding whether non-profit employers
can be held vicariously liable for the sexual abuse of children committed by their
employees. In Bazley, the victim was a child in a residential care facility (the
Childrens Foundation) for emotionally troubled children, and the carers were
authorised to act as parent figures for the children. As substitute parents, the
carers practised total intervention in all aspects of the childrens lives including
intimate duties like bathing and tucking in at bedtime. In Jacobi on the other
hand, the non-profit organisation ran a club that conducted activities after school
and on Saturdays. The victims were a brother and a sister, who developed an
intimate relationship with the programme director, which culminated in sexual
assaults. After reviewing the facts of the case, analysing case law and considering
policy issues, the Supreme Court of Canada arrived at the following guiding
principles when determining whether an employer is vicariously liable for an
unauthorised and intentional wrong committed by an employee:
(1)
whether the wrongful act is sufficiently related to the conduct authorised by

the employer;
(2)
where there is a significant connection between the creation or enhancement

of a risk and the wrong that follows from it, imposing vicarious liability will
152
serve the policy considerations of providing adequate and just remedy and
deterrence;
(3)
In determining (1) and (2) above, some factors may be considered:

(a) the opportunity the organisation afforded the employee to abuse his or her
power;
(b) the extent of power conferred on the employee in relation to the victim
and the vulnerability of potential victims to wrongful exercise of the
employees power (i.e. the existence of a power or dependency
relationship).
The Supreme Court found the Childrens Foundation guilty of vicarious liability for
the sexual misconduct of its employee. By providing both the opportunity and
environment in the terms of the employment, the Childrens Foundation actually
increased the risk that led to the sexual abuse. This meant that between the
Childrens Foundation that created and managed the risk and the innocent victim,
the Childrens Foundation should bear the loss. To rule otherwise would not have
been fair to the victim and would not have detered others who care for vulnerable
children.
By a majority of 4 to 3, the Supreme Court of Canada in the Jacobi case

distinguished the Jacobi case from the Bazley case. Justice Binnie held that
unlike Childrens Foundation the enterprise here had only two employees and its
emphasis was on developing (horizontal) relationships among the members (i.e.
the children who go to the Club), not vertical relationships to persons in
authority (italics mine). The Club offered group recreational activities to be
enjoyed in the presence of volunteers and other members, and the opportunity
afforded to the offending employee (Griffiths) to abuse his power was slight.
153
Thus, it was felt that the requirement for a strong connection between the
employment and the assault (enhanced by a job-created power and intimacy) was
not present to the requisite degree to justify the imposition of vicarious liability
on the Club. However, the Court went on to say that if the Club was negligent in
hiring Griffiths, or supervising him, or in using Griffiths to discharge its own duty
of care to the children, then a direct liability of negligence would result.
The Bazley and Jacobi cases have application for schools. While teachers can be
said to have some level of job created power and are said to act in loco
parentis, the courts will likely look for a job created intimacy imposed by the
education authority or school board and a close connection between the teachers
duties and his or her wrongful acts before they are willing to hold the education
authority or school board liable without proof of negligence on its part.
Otherwise, we see a significant and unacceptable risk that school districts would
be dissuaded from permitting teachers to interact with their students on any but
the most formal and supervised basis (Supreme Court of California in John R. v.
Oakland Unified School District [1989]).
A section in the Criminal Code of Canada that has a significant impact on the
professionalism of teachers in Canada is Section 153. This section was introduced
in 1983 and it states, Every person who is in a position of trust or authority
towards a person 14 years or older but younger than 18 and who for a sexual
purpose touches any part of the body of that young person is guilty of sexual
exploitation. The questions that arise from this code are: when is the teacher in
a position of trust and authority, and is a teachers conduct outside school within
the ambit of Section 153? These questions were addressed in 1996 by the Supreme
154
Court of Canada in the case of R. v. Audet. Audet was a 22 year old teacher who
met a former student (who had just turned 14) at a club in New Brunswick. Audet
and his friend spent the evening at the bar with the victim and her female
cousins. Audets friend then suggested that they went to a cottage and the victim
and her cousins agreed. Audet developed a headache and went to lie down in an
adjoining bedroom. Some time later, the victim joined him in the bed without
permission and eventually, they engaged in some mutual oral sex. Both the trial
judge and the Court of Appeal held that Audet had not been in a position of trust
or authority at the time of the alleged offence. Consideration was also given to
the apparent consent of the victim and Audets inexperience and age. The case
was brought to the Supreme Court of Canada who found Audet guilty. Justice La
Forest (for the majority) said this:
in the absence of evidence raising a reasonable doubt in the mind of the
trier of fact, it cannot be concluded that a teacher is not in a position of
trust and authority towards his or her students without going against
common sensethe purpose of section 153 is to make it clear that a
person in a position of authority or trust towards a young person is not to
engage in sexual activity with that young person, even though there is
apparent consent (p. 4).
The case of Audet suggests that in most cases, teachers in Canada will be viewed
to be in a position of trust and authority towards their students. It was irrelevant
that the teacher did not use or abuse his authority, or that the child consented to
the act, as the teacher was expected to resist the wrongful activity (Anderson &
Fraser, 2002). This is sound reasoning and it would be hard to believe that other
jurisdictions would not apply similar principles.
155
All Canadian provinces have some form of provincial legislation and codes of
professional conduct requiring teachers to behave in a manner that ensures the
physical and emotional safety of their students65 (Anderson & Fraser, 2002). In one
case, a 25 year old female teacher was acquitted of criminal charges for having an
affair with a 17 year old male student. Nevertheless, the Professional Conduct
Committee found that the teacher had violated her position of trust as a teacher,
and had compromised the honour and dignity of the profession. Her membership
of the profession was revoked and her teaching certificate cancelled (Jaster v.
Professional Conduct Committee, n.d.). In Canada, losing ones teaching
certificate in one jurisdiction means that the teacher cannot obtain another
certificate elsewhere (Anderson & Fraser, 2002). The ability of the teaching
profession to self-discipline members of the profession indeed sets a high standard
for teachers in Canada.
5.8.6 Sexual Misconduct in South Africa

Employment of Educators Act of 1998
An item of legislation that aims to improve the teaching profession in terms of the
quality of educators in South Africa is the Employment of Educators Act (1998). In
this Act, special attention is given to teacher appointments, promotion and
transfer, termination of service of educators, description of teacher misconduct
and incapacity, and, most importantly, the founding of the South African Council
for Educators, which is effectively the teaching professions watchdog
65
In Ontario, a teacher can be found guilty of misconduct under the law for abusing a student
physically, sexually, verbally, psychologically or emotionally or for an act or omission that, having
regard to all of the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable or
unprofessional (Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996). In Alberta, any conduct of a teacher that, in
the opinion of a hearing committee, is detrimental to the best interests of the students (as defined
by the School Act [1980]), the public, or the teaching profession, whether or not that conduct is
disgraceful or dishonourable, may be found by a hearing committee to constitute unprofessional
conduct (Teaching Profession Act [2000]).
156
(Oosthuizen, 2003). The functions of the South African Council for Educators
include the registering of educators, promoting of professional development of
educators, and setting, maintaining and protecting ethical and professional
standards for educators (South African Council for Educators Act [2000]).
Of particular concern to the South African Council for Educators is the sexual
misconduct of educators, and one of the actions taken by them to ensure safety in
schools in this respect is to force teachers to report colleagues involved in sexual
relationships with pupils (Pretorius, 2002). If the South African Council for
Educators came to know of a case of misconduct and it was found that other
teachers knew about the problem but did not report it, those teachers actions
could amount to aiding and abetting. In September 2006, the South African
Council for Educators, in a press release, informed the public that 30 teachers had
been sacked for sexual misconduct occurring from 2001 to 2006 (Sexual
Misconduct, 2006). Such information is reassuring to the public, as it shows that
actions are being taken against teachers found to be sexually abusing pupils.
Another policy that targets the integrity of the teaching profession in South Africa
is that of performance evaluation. In April 2003, the Education Minister
announced that, in order to qualify for annual increments and to merit awards,
teachers are to face performance assessments (Govender, 2003). One can
conclude that for educators to be regarded as professional people and if the best
interests of the child are of paramount consideration, the legislation and policies
discussed above will go a long way towards achieving these goals and, at the same
time, provide quality education for children in South Africa.
157
Another issue in South Africa in particular is that of the incapacity of teachers to

carry out their duties due to HIV or Aids. Since the HIV or Aids pandemic is
currently devastating African countries, some schools in Sub-Saharan countries
(South Africa is one of them) are regarded as high risk areas, in which HIV or Aids
can be contracted more easily (Rossouw & Rossouw, 2002). This explains why the
South African Council for Educators takes a serious view of sexual misconduct by
teachers and adopts drastic measures to combat this problem. Where a teacher is
unfit for duties due to suspected HIV or Aids, the Employment of Educators Act
(1998) provides for the employer to initiate an investigation or the teacher may
apply for a discharge. However, there are procedural safeguards for the teachers,
such as the requirement for employers to obtain the permission of the Labour
Court before employers can test a teacher for HIV or Aids (Section 7, Employment
Equity Act [1998]). The legislation examined so far suggests that the essence of
education and the law in South Africa is in creating an environment that is safe,
secure and predominantly focused on the best interests of the child.
5.9
Educational Malpractice: Educational Malpractice in Australia, the US

and England
For educators, the notion of being negligently legally liable for poor teaching that
results in the failure of students being able to achieve expected educational
outcomes is an unthinkable prospect, but two of the principals in the research
study conducted in Australia by Stewart revealed that this was precisely the type
of threat that they had received (Stewart, 1996a). Although no legal action of this
nature has in fact taken place in Australia, Harbord and Crafter (2000) noted that
in other parts of the world, there is an emerging trend of legal proceedings being
brought against teachers, blaming them for low scores in literacy, numeracy or
158
even the failure to pass an examination. The duty implied on educators to ensure
the educational well-being of their students and the breach of such duty is what is
commonly termed in the literature educational malpractice or educational
negligence. In fact, a case of educational negligence has been successfully
brought to the courts in England, and this will be discussed later on in this section.
The position of the US courts with regard to the issue of educational malpractice
will first be reviewed. The first case in the US was heard in 1976 [Peter W v. San
Francisco Unified School District (1976)] where the student sued the school
authority for failing to discharge its duties by providing adequate instruction,
guidance or supervision in basic skills such as reading and writing. The Court
concluded that there was no general duty of care owed by educators to students
in respect of educational outcomes. The next US case was Donohue v. Copiague
Union Free School District (1979) (Donohue) where a similar allegation to the
earlier case was made. While the claim against the school district was
unsuccessful due to policy considerations, the Court of Appeals of New York noted
that a suit for educational malpractice could be made to fit the traditional
negligence principles. They also made the comment that if doctors, lawyers,
architects, engineers and other professionals are charged with a duty owing to the
public whom they serve, it could be said that nothing in the law precludes similar
treatment of professional educators (Donohue, p.443).
A third case that arose, which had a significant effect on the meaning of
educational malpractice, was the case of Hoffman v. Board of Education (1979).
In contrast to the earlier two cases, the student in this case alleged specific
incidents of negligence. The negligent act of the school authority involved the
159
incorrect assessment of his IQ level and failure to reassess him two years after the
first assessment, as recommended by the clinical psychologist. As a result, he was
placed with the intellectually impaired, causing him emotional and intellectual
injury, and his ability to obtain employment was greatly reduced. The Court
agreed that this was a case that could be classified as one of educational
malpractice, but in line with the earlier cases, the claim was rejected because it
was precluded by public policy considerations. Public policy considerations would
include: putting the courts into an improper position of interfering with the day to
day policies that are entrusted to a school authority, a flood of cases inundating
the courts and the placing of undue burden upon the limited resources of schools.
In England, the expression educational negligence rather than educational

malpractice is used and the first of such cases, X v. Bedfordshire County Council
(1995) (X v. Bedfordshire), was heard by the House of Lords (the highest court
of appeal in the country) in 1995, 19 years after the first US case. X v.
Bedfordshire was a consolidation of five appeals66 involving allegations that the
Local Education Authorities (LEAs) had caused injury to the plaintiffs by
breaches of statutory duty under the Education Acts. Although the House of Lords
held that damages were not available for breaches of statutory duty under the
legislation, the House nevertheless laid down the principle that in an appropriate
case, there is scope for argument as to the liability of the LEAs for the negligence
of their servants or agents. Lord Browne-Wilkinson said this in X v. Bedfordshire:
66
P1 and Others (Minors)(Appellants) v.Bedfordshire County Council (Respondents), In Re M (A
Minor) (1994) and another (A. P.) (Appellant), In Re E (A Minor) (1994) (A.P.) (Respondent),
Christmas (A.P.) (Respondent) v. Hampshire County Council (Appellants), Keating (A.P.) (Original
Respondent And Cross-Appellant) v. Mayor etc. Of The London Borough Of Bromley (Original
Appellants And Cross-Respondents).
160
In my judgment a school which accepts a pupil assumes responsibility not

only for his physical well-being but also for his educational needs. The
education of the pupil is the very purpose for which the child goes to
school. The head teacher, being responsible for the school, himself comes
under a duty of care to exercise the reasonable skills of a headmaster in
relation to such educational needs. If it comes to the attention of the
headmaster that a pupil is under-performing, he does owe a duty to take
such steps as a reasonable teacher would consider appropriate to try to
deal with such under-performance. To hold that, in such circumstances,
the head teacher could properly ignore the matter and make no attempt
to deal with it would fly in the face, not only of societys expectations of
what a school will provide, but also of the fine traditions of the teaching
profession itself (p. 766B).
The judgment in X v. Bedfordshire led to speculation as to when and how claims

of educational negligence can be brought and as to what the appropriate level for
the standard of care and extent of the duty of care for these cases are (Berman,
Burkill, Russell & Rabinowicz, 2001). Traditionally, the English courts, like their
counterparts in the US, have protected the LEAs from liability, because they are
seen as public authorities that are bringing positive benefits to the community and
therefore should not be subject to wider claims than those faced by private bodies
(Greenwold, 2000). As a result, public bodies have enjoyed a blanket legal
immunity, even if a few individuals have been negligently harmed by them.
However, Greenwold, 2000, observed that parents and pupils are increasingly seen
as consumers of public services and have equivalent rights to those found in all
commercial transactions. The effect of this social change is that the courts will no
longer allow policy considerations to prevent an otherwise valid claim against
the LEAs, thus destroying the virtual blanket immunity enjoyed by the LEAs. This
161
trend was confirmed in the appeal cases of Phelps v. London Borough of

Hillingdon, Anderton v. Clwyd County Council, Jarvis v. Hampshire County
Council, and Re G (a minor) (2000) (Phelps). The facts of the first appeal case
(which is representative of the other three cases) will be briefly described.
Ms Phelps has dyslexia. The school in which Ms Phelps was a pupil employed an
educational psychologist who did not diagnose her dyslexia but instead reported
that the testing revealed no specific weaknesses. After leaving school, she
obtained a job but was subsequently dismissed because she had difficulties with
anything requiring literacy. Ms Phelps claimed that because of the failure of the
school, she failed to receive the necessary educational provision for her dyslexia
and did not learn to read and write as well as she could have done. She sued the
LEA in the High Court and the High Court held that the LEA was vicariously liable
for the psychologists negligence. The LEA was ordered to pay compensation to Ms
Phelps. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Court felt that the function of the
psychologist was to provide information to the LEA and thus there was no direct
duty owed to the child. The first requirement (that is, duty of care owed to the
plaintiff) for bringing a negligence case was not satisfied. The Court was also
concerned that the immunity of the LEA from suit granted for powerful policy
reasons will be completely circumvented if an individual psychologist or teacher
can be sued and the employer held vicariously liable (Lord Justice Stuart-Smith,
Court of Appeal, Phelps, p. 15). For these reasons, the High Courts ruling was
reversed and Ms Phelps appealed to the House of Lords.
The House of Lords (which consisted of a panel of seven Law Lords) disagreed with
the Court of Appeal and instead concurred with the principle laid down by Lord
162
Browne-Wilkinson in X v. Bedfordshire. The House held unanimously that claims

for education negligence could be brought against the teacher/psychologist/LEA.
The Law Lords were of the view that the educational psychologist owed a direct
duty of care to Ms Phelps because she was specifically asked to give advice on the
childs needs and was to recommend suitable educational provision for that child.
It was also clear that Ms Phelps parents and teachers would follow that advice.
There was therefore no reason why the LEA, as employer of the psychologist,
could not be vicariously liable for the breach of duty of care by the educational
psychologist. The Court of Appeals decision was overturned and damages of
almost 50,000 were awarded to Ms Phelps (Phelps, 2000).
The House of Lords recognised the difficulties of the teaching profession and the
dedication, professionalism and standards exhibited by those involved in the
education service, and acknowledged that the courts should not find negligence
too readily. At the same time however, the House of Lords pointed out that the
fact that some claims may be without foundation or exaggerated does not mean
that valid claims should necessarily be excluded (Lord Slynn in Phelps, 2000, p.
11). The outcome of this case for educators and the LEAs in England is that LEAs
and other professional people working in the education service do owe a legal
duty of care to all their pupils. While claims based merely on allegations of poorquality teaching would fail, claimants would receive compensation if they could
point to specific errors caused by incompetence. (Greenwold, 2000, p. 246).
Lawyers and education in England would agree that the case of Phelps has indeed
marked a legal revolution. However, one commentator noted that while the
Phelps case did endorse the duty of care in the education context, in practice, it
is unlikely that actions for educational negligence will become widespread. The
163
difficulty of establishing the breach of duty of care in the context of education,

and the causal link between such breach and the consequential loss to the child,
would limit such cases to exceptional situations. Nevertheless, the commentators
statement is very compelling: that though such actions are likely to be
exceptional, the very possibility of an educational negligence action may,
however, in itself operate to promote the highest possible professional standards
among professional educationists (Meredith, 2000, p. 142).
Should Australia follow the Americans or the British? This is a question asked by
an academic (Hopkins, 1996) after the X v. Bedfordshire case. Hopkins view is
similar to that of Meredith above in that the threat of litigation may not
necessarily operate as a disincentive to good teaching. Rather, it could lead to
greater professionalism among teachers, as they are made aware they might have
to account for, and justify on educational grounds, what they are doing in the
classroom. Better, not worse, teaching might result. (Hopkins, 1996, p. 54). It is
true that the teaching profession is demanding and pressuring as it is, without
adding to teachers the fear of a negligence action for poor teaching. Nevertheless,
Hopkins correctly argued that this does not exempt school authorities from the
responsibility of putting in place systems for all students (including students with
learning disabilities) to pursue their right to a sound education. In surveying the
international trends and the developments in Australia, Justice R. Atkinson of the
Supreme Court of Queensland, in 2002, was of the view that educational
authorities will not
be able to rely on the policy reasons used in the United States to avoid
liability for negligence in the provision of education. If such negligence
can be isolated as a cause of measurably inferior outcomes for students,
then it seems to me that educators and educational authorities are likely
164
to be held liable in much the same way that they have been held liable for
physical injuries to children under their care and control (Atkinson, 2002,
p. 14).
Almost six years after Justice Atkinsons statement, a case was indeed filed in a
Victorian court by a father who claimed that his Year 12 twin boys did not achieve
the academic results that were expected to be attained by an elite private school.
The father claimed that in light of the appalling Year 12 results, the fees paid
were excessive and unnecessary. He sued the school for the repayment of up to
$400,000 in fees paid from kindergarten to Year 12 (Hudson, 2008). As this case
had only just started at the time of writing this section, the outcome is not
known. In the researchers opinion, if the father of the twins cannot identify
specific incidents that culminated in the twins inability to perform academically,
it is unlikely for his claim to succeed. Nevertheless, this case reinforced the point
made by the judges and academics in the preceding paragraphs that parents are
increasingly expecting a high level of professionalism in the delivery of education.
5.10
Other Areas of Law Concerning Education
Besides student records (privacy), rights of students with disabilities and the tort
of negligence in the areas of student injuries, bullying in schools, sexual
misconduct of teachers and educational malpractice, there many other legal
issues that concern schools. It is beyond the scope of this brief overview to review
all the issues, and so only a limited number of comparatively important issues
have been mentioned in this chapter so far. Another two areas that are of
importance to this review are mandatory reporting of child abuse and school
discipline. In closing, criminal law, the law on defamation and issues in family law
relating to schools will also be mentioned briefly.
165
5.11
Child Abuse Schools: Mandatory Reporting
5.11.1 Child Abuse in the US

A topic closely related to that of Sexual Misconduct is that of Child Abuse and
the reporting requirements. In the US, child abuse is a state crime and state
statutory definitions vary. However, all the states use a combination of two or
more of the following elements to define abuse and neglect: (1) physical injury,
(2) mental or emotional injury, (3) sexual molestation or exploitation (Fischer et
al., 2003, p. 95). All states require teachers, administrators and school counsellors
to report known or suspected cases of child abuse and neglect, and failure to do
so can subject them to criminal penalties under the law. As accusations against
the parents tend to get a very negative response towards the accuser, the law has
provided protection to individuals who report suspected abuse cases in good faith
and without malice. The protection takes the form of civil or criminal immunity
from liability associated with such reporting. (Child Welfare Information Gateway,
2005).
5.11.2 Child Abuse in Australia

In Australia, there is legislation in all States and Territories that involves the
community in protecting children from harm or abuse. As for the teaching
profession, it was noted by Ramsay and Shorten (1996) that it is only from the
early 1980s that teachers and principals were increasingly involved in the
mandatory reporting of child abuse. For example, Northern Territory, New South
Wales, South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria all have legislation that impose
obligations on teachers and principals to report known or suspected abuse or
neglect of a child since early 1980s. In the Northern Territory, Section 14 of the
Community Welfare Act (1983) mandates every member of the community to
166
report any suspected child abuse. This broad provision includes teachers. In New
South Wales, mandatory reporting requirements are set out in section 24 of the
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act (1998)67, while in Victoria,
it is section 64 of the Children and Young Persons Act (1989). Similarly in South
Australia, the Childrens Protection Act (1993) requires teachers to report
suspected cases of child abuse. In Tasmania, the Children, Young Persons and
Their Families Act (1997) replaced the Childrens Protection Act (1975) to impose
a duty on teachers to report children who are at risk (not just school principals
as previously legislated under the Childrens Protection Act [1975]). Mandatory
reporting in the Australian Capital Territory was only introduced into legislation in
the late 1990s. The Children and Young People Act (1999) mandated groups of
people to report physical and sexual abuse, and teachers are listed as one of the
groups (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2005).
In Queensland, reporting of suspected child abuse and neglect is carried out

through policy rather than legislation. Education Queensland requires school
principals to report suspected child abuse cases to the relevant authorities, while
teachers are required to do so through their principals (Department of Education,
Training and Arts, n.d.). However, under the Education (General
Provisions)(2006), if a staff member of a State school becomes aware, or
reasonably suspects, that a student under 18 years attending the school has been
sexually abused by someone else who is an employee of the school (italics mine),
that staff member must give a written report about the abuse, or suspected
abuse, to the schools principal or the principals supervisor immediately (Section
67
Formerly the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987. The new Children and Young Persons (Care
and Protection) Act 1998 adopts a less formalistic approach to the involvement of children, and
provides for relevant departments and agencies to give children information, and requires the courts
and others to take account of their wishes (Parkinson, 2001).
167
365). In other words, it is mandatory to report suspected sexual abuse cases if the
alleged perpetrator is an employee of the school.
Western Australia is the only State in Australia that does not have mandatory
requirements to report child abuse. The philosophy in Western Australia is that
the primary responsibilities of protecting children belong both to the government
and the community. As such, the Department for Community Development (the
DCD) is empowered under the Children and Community Services Act (2004) to
take protective action on behalf of children with the help of the community. In
the same way that New Zealand has her inter-agencies protocols, the DCD has the
Reciprocal Child Protection Procedures agreement with all the relevant Western
Australian government departments as a way of working together. Referrals about
possible harm to children are facilitated by a series of reciprocal protocols that
have been negotiated with key government and non-government agencies, rather
than by mandatory reporting. Thus teachers and principals have a duty as
employees of the Department of Education or otherwise to follow the agreed
procedures as outlined in the Reciprocal Child Protection Procedures whenever
there are concerns about possible child abuse or neglect (Department for
Communities, n.d.).
As children spend a significant amount of time in school, teachers and principals

are in a very strong position to notice suspected cases of child abuse or neglect.
For Queensland, it is an anomaly that it is only mandatory to report suspected
sexual abuse committed by an employee of the school. In New Zealand and
Western Australia, reporting child abuse is voluntary. It would be interesting to
see research being carried out to determine whether mandatory or voluntary
168
reporting better achieves the objective of preventing or reducing the incidents of

child abuse and neglect.
5.11.3 Child Abuse in New Zealand

The Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act (1989) (CYPTFA) was first
enacted in 1989 and was regarded as the key piece of legislation that guards the
welfare of the child. In January 1995, many changes were made to the CYPTFA,
but the main concern at the time was whether mandatory reporting should be
introduced. After much debate, the government decided on education and
voluntary reporting rather than mandatory reporting. The approach is proactive,
in that emphasis is given to raising public awareness of child abuse and its
unacceptability, to ways of preventing and reporting child abuse, and, finally, to
developing and implementing protocols with inter-agencies for reporting child
abuse (Department of Child, Youth & Family Services, 2001).
Although reporting in New Zealand is entirely voluntary, School Boards have been
issued with booklets detailing the Interagency Protocols for child abuse
management. The booklets set out the joint national protocols for the
management of reporting procedures for cases of child abuse, and schools are
strongly advised to follow the policies and procedures for the voluntary reporting
of child abuse as recommended in the interagency protocols (Ministry of Education
(New Zealand), 2006).
5.11.4 Child Abuse in England

In England, the teacher has a role to play in protecting a child from child abuse.
The Children Act (1989) places a duty on the local education authorities and their
169
schools to assist social services departments in their investigation of child abuse

cases (Section 27 and 47, Children Act [1989]). In this regard, the role of the
education service in helping to protect children from abuse is recognised. Whitney
(1993, p. 39) claims that:
studies have indicated that more children disclose the existence of abuse
to school staff than to anyone elseentirely to be expected bearing in
mind the amount of time which children spend at school and the
extremely valuable nature of the relationships with teachers and others
which are formed there.
As an added measure to the Children Act, the government also issues guidance to
schools in the form of circulars requiring an appointment of a responsible member
of staff in every school who is able to deal with child protection issues. This
member of staff must possess skills such as knowing how to identify the signs and
symptoms of abuse, and have adequate knowledge of the role and responsibilities
of child protection and investigating agencies (Webb & Vulliamy, 2001). All
members of staff should be aware of the role of this designated member of staff
and any disclosure of possible abuse by a child should be passed on to this
designated member of staff (The Heads Legal Guide, Croner, 1999). However, it
should be noted that while teachers have the duty to cooperate with the social
services to prevent child abuse, reporting child abuse is not mandatory under the
English criminal law (Stretch, 2003), and it is argued that introducing mandatory
reporting in England may not necessarily be better than the current system of
shared responsibilities between government agencies (Stretch, 2003; Sinclair,
2003-2004).
170
5.11.5 Child Abuse in Canada

Child protection is an issue that extends beyond the school, and when it comes to
reporting child abuse, the various provinces and territories in Canada have their
respective legislation that deal with it. For example, the state of Ontario Section
72 of the Child and Family Services Act (1990) (CFSA) makes it an offence for
someone having charge of a child to inflict abuse on the child. Section 72(4) and
(5) further creates the offence of failing to report for persons who perform
professional or official duties relating to children (Brown & Zuker, 2002, p. 328).
Thus if a teacher suspects a caregiver or even a colleague of abusing a child,
physically or sexually, he or she has a duty to report it, failing which, an offence
would have been committed and a penalty imposed. In this legislation, the best
interests of the child is of paramount importance and only a standard of
reasonable grounds to suspect is required of the reporting person (Section 72(1)
of CFSA). Other provinces in Canada also have similar legislation. Another example
in Alberta where, under the Child Welfare Act (2000), a teacher who reasonably
believes (and has probable grounds to support this belief) that a child has been
physically ill-treated or is in need of protection has a duty to report it to a child
welfare director (Fraser, 2003). Arguably, even if there is nothing in the law that
compels teachers to report cases of child abuse, teachers are seen to have a
moral duty to act on evidence or suspicion of such cases to the relevant
authority.
5.11.6 Child Abuse in South Africa

The protection of children from abuse and neglect is a concern that educators
have long been aware of and are becoming increasingly so. Principle 2 of the
171
United Nations in the Declaration of the Rights of a Child 195968 recognised the
childs right to be protected by stating:
The child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunities
and facilities, by the law and other means, to enable him to develop
physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and
normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. In the
enactment of laws for this purpose, the best interests of the child shall be
the paramount consideration.
The Child Care Act of (1983) thus concentrates on the protection of children.
Under this Act, educators in South Africa are compelled to report cases of child
abuse and neglect. Failure by educators to report constitutes an offence but, at
the same time, educators are protected from legal proceedings in respect of
good faith reports (De Wet, 2002).
5.12
Behaviour Management
5.12.1 Corporal Punishment in the US

The use of physical contact such as smacking, striking, spanking or caning of a
student by an educator constitutes corporal punishment. It is a controversial
practice that generated much debate until 1977, when the US Supreme Court
intervened by upholding the practice of corporal punishment in the case of
Ingraham v. Wright (1977) (Ingraham). The two issues addressed by the Court
were whether the administration of corporal punishment represented cruel and
unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and whether prior
notice and an opportunity to be heard was required before the punishment (La
68
The United Nations in the Declaration of the Rights of a Child 1959 is a document that expands
and amplifies the special rights of the child as enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights 1948. Unlike the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, it is a nonbinding resolution of the United Nations General Assembly (The Circumcision Reference Library).
172
Morte, 1999, p. 129). The Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution states

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and
unusual punishments inflicted. The Court studied the history of the Eighth
Amendment and concluded that it was never intended to apply to schools but was
formulated to control the punishment of criminals who are incarcerated in closed
institutions. The Court was of the view that the decision as to whether children or
youths should be physically punished is not a legal matter but rather a policy
question for educators to decide, having considered factors such as the
psychological or developmental outcomes of such punishments. The Court further
held that where such punishment is allowed by legislation and local school boards,
it must remain within reasonable limits, in that it must relate to an educational
purpose and not be merely an expression of a teachers anger, frustration or
malice. Where punishment is excessive and unreasonable, students have the legal
avenue of suing the perpetrators for money damages for the suffering endured and
can even make out a criminal charge for assault and battery. The Court ruled that
these traditional remedies are enough to deter educators and minimise abuse
(Fischer, 2003, p. 242).
With regard to the second issue concerning the students rights for prior notice
and a fair hearing, the US Supreme Court ruled that the existing remedies
enunciated above would suffice and that by adding procedural safeguards to
protect students rights, schools would suffer a significant intrusion into an area
of primary educational responsibility (Ingraham, p. 680). One can conclude from
the case of Ingraham that, in the absence of legislation to the contrary, teachers
may inflict corporal punishment on their students. It should be noted, however,
173
that, despite the ruling in Ingraham, more than half of the states in the US do not
allow the practice of corporal punishment (La Morte, 1999, p. 134).
5.12.2 Suspension and Expulsion in the US

Earlier, it was mentioned that laws are passed to mandate school districts to expel
students who bring guns to school. But there is other disruptive conduct that
requires severe disciplinary action. Suspension or exclusion is sometimes used as a
means of disciplinary action, and usually for violation of school rules. In the US,
the Fourteenth Amendment is strictly observed, and thus a student who is issued
with a notice of suspension or expulsion has a right to procedural due process
(Russo & Mawdsely, 2003). This position was firmly established in the case of Goss
v. Lopez (1975) (Goss) for short term suspension. In Goss, the Supreme Court
laid down the minimum procedures school administrators must follow when
suspending students: mainly, that the student must be given oral or written notice
of the offence committed and the evidence available. The student must then be
given an opportunity to present his or her version of events.
The rights of students in the case of expulsion proceedings were not clearly
addressed in the case of Goss. The Court merely commented that longer
suspensions or expulsions for the remainder of the school term, or permanently,
may require more formal procedures (Goss, p. 584). However, the case of
Gonzales v. McEuen (1977) (Gonzales) may give some indication of what these
procedures might be. According to Gonzales, a notice of expulsion hearing must
set out the nature of the proceedings, and include the specific charges and the
basic rights available to the student. These rights encompass the right of
representation, the right to present evidence, and the right to confront and cross-
174
examine adverse witnesses (Gonzales; La Morte, 1999, p. 125). The outcome of

this case was a response to the challenge of the impartiality of the School Board
conducting the expulsion hearing. Given the importance of this issue, a few states
in the US have enacted statutes to delineate the various rights of students in
expulsion proceedings (Russo & Mawdsley, 2003).
5.12.3 Corporal Punishment in Australia

Section 280 of the Australian Criminal Code states it is lawful for a parent or
person in the place of a parent, or for a school teacher or master to use, by way
of correction, discipline, management, or control, towards a child or pupil, under
the persons care, such force as is reasonable under the circumstances. In Sparks
v. Martin (1908), a teacher gave a pupil five to nine strokes of the cane on the
back of his thighs, leaving several bluish marks, when the pupil refused to answer
questions put to him by the teacher. It was held that pursuant to the criminal
code, the punishment was not excessive. In another case in 1959, when a 15 year
old boy was rude to the teacher, the teacher responded by slapping the boy twice
across the face, and several times on the left shoulder. The magistrate concluded
that while facial punishment is unreasonable, it was not likely to and did not
cause the boy any real injury. Thus, the magistrate held that the punishment was
not excessive (White v. Weller [1959]).
Educators who are from the same era as the magistrate in the latter case may
agree that the teachers punishment was not excessive. However, in the 1970s and
1980s, disapproval of such harsh discipline has escalated to the extent where
methods of corporal punishment such as smacking, caning, or even psychological
techniques like the dunces cap are prohibited (Atkinson, 2002). For example in
175
Queensland, due to the increased support by teachers and parents for the total
abolition of corporal punishment in schools, a decision was made by the
Department of Education in 1992 to phase out corporal punishment. As part of the
reform of student behaviour management, each school community, including
teachers, students and parents, was given the responsibility to develop a code of
behaviour. At the beginning of the 1995 school year, corporal punishment in
Queensland state schools was finally abolished as a policy (Annual Report of the
Minister of Education, n.d., p.6).
Corporal punishment in the other states of Australia is regulated at the respective

state levels, and there is a noticeable trend against the use of corporal
punishment (Ramsay & Shorten, 1996, p. 43). The move is certainly towards
prohibiting the use of corporal punishment, either by way of policy or by
legislation. For example, in New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory and
Victoria, legislation specifically bans corporal punishment69. It is interesting to
note that where education policy is used to curb corporal punishment, the
common law defence of reasonable chastisement will arguably be available to
teachers. This proved to be the case when a magistrate in the Gold Coast,
Queensland, dismissed an assault charge against a teacher, who admitted to
slapping a Year 8 student. The magistrate cited the recognition of domestic
discipline that allows a teacher to use reasonable force by way of correction,
discipline, management or control (Stolz, 200870). Perhaps some may consider
69
In New South Wales, section 35 of the Education Act 1990; in the Australian Capital Territory,
section 7(4) of the Education Act 2004; and in Victoria, section 4 of the Education and Training
Reform Act 2006.
70
Stolz, G. (2008, February 15). Gold Coast teacher cleared after slapping student. Courier Mail,
Australia. Retrieved 15 February, 2008, from http://www.news.com.au/ story/0,23599,232176161248,00.html.
176
this not to be a bad thing in a culture where educators authority to discipline in

loco parentis can be undermined by a childs individual rights.
5.12.4 Suspension and Expulsion in Australia

Each jurisdiction in Australia has its own legislation and policy to guide the
important issue of suspension and expulsion (Jackson & Varnham, 2007). These,
however, only apply to students in government schools. For non-government
schools, common law applies and it is based on the contract between the parents
and the school (Knott, 1997b; Butler & Mathews, 2007).
As pointed out by Jackson and Varnham, 2007 and Butler and Mathews, 2007, the
legislative powers concerning suspension and expulsion for government schools in
Australia differ in various aspects. In some States, only the Director-General of
Education or the Minister (on the recommendation of the principal) has the power
to suspend or expel a student, while in others the principal has the power to
suspend a student for misconduct, or to expel the student for very serious
misconduct. Similarly, long suspension (for up to 20 days) is usually ordered only
for serious misbehaviour. The issue of alternative education is also addressed in
some states. This issue will be discussed further when reviewing the English
position.
5.12.5 Corporal Punishment in New Zealand

Corporal punishment in schools in New Zealand is illegal. Section 139A of
Education Amendment Act (1989) prohibits the use of force, by way of correction
or punishment, towards any student or child enrolled at or attending the school,
institution, or centre. Although this law has been passed many years ago, there is
177
still a conflict between the concept of childrens rights and the traditional
concept of parental rights to discipline their children. This is seen in the call on
the Education Minister, by a member of Parliament, Sue Bradford, in February
2007, to take action to protect children who attend schools that continue to allow
corporal punishment with the blessings of parents (Schools Flouting, 2007).
One reason for this is the legal defence available to parents in section 59 of the
Crimes Act (1961) which provides the legal defence of the use of reasonable force
by way of correction. However, as at 1 January 2008, this defence is no longer
available. Under the new section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961, parents are allowed
to use reasonable force for the purposes of protection from danger or prevention
of damage to people or property but the section then goes on to specifically
disallow parents to use force (even if reasonable) for the purpose of correction.
It will be interesting to see how schools and parents react to this new legislation
and how it is enforced in New Zealand, but, at least for the time being, the law in
section 59(4) ensures that minor assaults will not easily be brought to the courts71.
As in most countries, corporal punishment will continue to be a controversial issue
in New Zealand.
5.12.6 Suspension and Expulsion in New Zealand

The Education Act (1989) and the Education (Stand-down Suspension, Exclusion,
and Expulsion) Rules 1999 stipulate the law on suspension and expulsion of a
student from a state school by providing a range of responses for: various cases of
misconduct; minimising the disruption to schooling; and ensuring that natural
71
Section 59(4) Crimes Act 1961 - Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a
parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the
use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is
no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.
178
justice is observed (Section 13 of the Education Act [1989]). In addition, the

Secretary of Education, pursuant to section 18AA of the Education Act (1989), is
also empowered to make rules to regulate the practice and procedure of
suspension and expulsion.
A comprehensive summary of the legislation and rules on suspensions and

expulsions can be found in the guidelines issued by the New Zealand Ministry of
Education72. Like most jurisdictions, suspension or expulsion is a response of the
last resort, and for expulsion cases, only the most serious incidents will warrant
this course of action. In New Zealand, the principal is the only person who can
make the decision to suspend a student (Section 14 of the Education Act [1989]).
The Board then has powers under Sections 15 and 17 to decide whether the
suspension should be lifted or extended, or whether the student should be
excluded or expelled. For students under the age of 16, the principal must arrange
for the excluded student to attend another school, failing which the Secretary
(the chief executive of the Ministry of Education) has the power under section 16
of the Education Act (1989) to intervene.
As can be seen from the above, legislation governing the suspension and expulsion
process is complex. The school board must thus ensure that the process is
correctly followed according to legislation and the rules. In this regard, judicial
interpretation proves useful in assisting principals and school boards in observing
the law. The leading authorities in New Zealand on school suspensions and
expulsions are the cases of M and R v. S and Board of Trustees Palmerston North
Boys High School (1990) (Palmerston case) and S v. M and Board of Trustees
72
See New Zealand Ministry of Education from
http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=8652&data=l&goto=00-01
179
Auckland Grammar School (1998). These cases addressed the criteria of gross
misconduct and observing natural justice when considering suspension and
expulsion. Gross misconduct, in the courts view, must be striking and
reprehensible to a point where it warrants removal from schoolall individual
circumstances must be consideredthere are no absolutes (Palmerston case, p.
28). Natural justice, on the other hand, requires the principal and the school
board to observe due process before making a decision. In the Auckland Grammar
School case, both the student and the parents were not notified of the reason for
the suspension, and the issue was not discussed with the parents at the suspension
meeting. This failure amounted to a breach of natural justice. In light of all the
procedural requirements, New Zealand schools will be well advised to protect a
student's rights by taking note of the legislation, policies and case law surrounding
this issue.
5.12.7 Corporal Punishment in England

Corporal punishment in all schools (both state and private) is prohibited by
legislation, namely the School Standards and Framework Act (1998) (SSFA), which
amends the Education Act (1996) to state corporal punishment given by, or on
the authority of, a member of staff to a childcannot be justified in any
proceedings on the ground that it was given in pursuance of a right exercisable by
the member of staff by virtue of his position as such (Section 548 Education Act
[1996]) (Diamond, 1999, p. 45). The decision to ban corporal punishment was the
result of a ruling made by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of
Campbell and Cosans v. United Kingdom (1982)(Campbell and Cosans). The issue
in this case was not so much Article 3 of the European Convention on Human
Rights (1950) (ECHR), which read, No one shall be subject to torture or to
180
inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, but Article 2 of the First

Protocol of the ECHR, which provides that
No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any
functions which it assumes in relation to education and teaching, the State
shall respect the rights of parents to ensure such education and teaching in
conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.
The parents in Campbell and Cosans were opposed to corporal punishment and the
European court held that, although the use of corporal punishment was not
degrading, the State must respect the religious and philosophical convictions
of parents as declared by Article 2 Protocol 1 of the ECHR (Diamond, 1999). The
Government decided that abolishing corporal punishment for all pupils was the
only effective means of complying with the ruling in Campbell and Cosans (Harris,
2002). The wider consequence of this decision is the issue of human rights. In
supporting the parents objections, the European court is supporting the idea that
parents have a basic human right to (at least) ensure that their offspring are not
educated in a way which is thoroughly offensive to them (The Heads Legal Guide,
Croner, 1999).
But after the Campbell and Cosans case, there was another group of people
(principals, teachers and parents) at four Christian schools that similarly used
Article 2 Protocol 1 of the ECHR, but this time, to argue for corporal punishment.
In the case of R. v. Secretary of State for Education and Employment; ex parte
Williamson (2005)(R. v. Secretary of State for Education), the protagonists for
corporal punishment argued that parents who believe in the teachings of the Bible
should be allowed to educate their children in accordance with their religious
and philosophical convictions. Although section 548(1) of the Education Act
(1996) specifically prohibits the use of corporal punishment by all teachers in all
181
schools, the parents in this case argued that this statutory provision did not apply,
because, having the common law right to discipline their child, they have
expressly delegated this right to a teacher. This interpretation, they claimed, is in
accord with their religious and philosophical convictions and hence safeguarded
their freedom of religion as purposed by the ECHR. In a unanimous decision, the
House of Lords upheld the ban on corporal punishment in all public and private
schools. One of the reasons that came through strongly in the judgment was that
religious belief must be consistent with basic standards of human dignity or
integrity. Another reason given was that it would be unjustifiable in terms of the
rights and protection of the child to allow some schools to inflict corporal
punishment while prohibiting the rest from doing so (R. v. Secretary of State for
Education, para. 86). But whatever arguments or debates that may emanate from
this judgment, this case has provided a powerful precedent against corporal
punishment in any form in any school in England (Jackson & Varnham, 2007, p.
156).
Although corporal punishment is prohibited, there are other disciplinary measures

that the schools can implement under the SSFA 1998. One such scheme is the
home-school agreements and accompanying parental declarations. The agreement
spells out for parents the schools aims and values, and its responsibilities, and
the declaration allows parents to acknowledge and accept the parental
responsibilities and the schools expectations of its pupils (Section 110(2) SSFA
1998). Parents cannot be compelled to sign the declaration and the agreement
does not give rise to any legal obligation under the law of contract or tort.
Nevertheless, it is hoped that by introducing this scheme, parents are pressured
182
to take responsibility for ensuring that their child completes his or her homework
and is well behaved at school (Harris, 2002, p. 60).
There are other disciplinary measures introduced by the Education Act (1997).
One is the power of staff to use physical restraint in certain circumstances.
Examples are situations where reasonable force is used for the purpose of
preventing a pupil from committing an offence or causing personal injury or
damage to property (Education Act (1997), Section 4); and the power to detain
pupils outside school hours without obtaining parental consent (Education Act
(1997), Section 5), provided certain conditions are met. But perhaps the most
powerful disciplinary sanction available to schools is permanent exclusion
(expulsion from school), discussed below.
5.12.8 Suspension and Expulsion in England

In England, the Education Act (1997) and the School Standards and Framework Act
(1998) give schools the power to exclude pupils either for a fixed period (limited
to a maximum of 45 school days per year) or permanently (Section 6 and section
64 respectively). This power is only exercisable by the head teacher, and in
deciding to exclude a child, the head teacher must have regard to the Secretary
of States guidance, which stipulates that exclusion should occur only in response
to `serious breaches of the schools discipline policy; and if allowing the pupil to
remain in school would seriously harm the education or welfare of the pupils or
others at the school (Harris, 2000; Harris, 2002, p. 64). In addition, the head
teacher must (without delay) inform the pupil of the period of exclusion and the
reasons for the exclusion. The pupil must also be given the opportunity to make
representations about the exclusion to the governing body and the local education
183
authority (Section 157(2), Education Act (1996), Section 67, School Standards and
Framework Act [1998]).
Although exclusion is a powerful sanction against indiscipline in schools, research

in England (Harris, 2000) shows that the most affected groups are the educational
underachievers and the socially disadvantaged groups. According to the research,
it is believed that there is a link between these groups of people and criminality,
and that the government is constantly proposing amendments to the guidance on
exclusion in the hope of seeing a reduction in the use made of the power of
exclusion (Harris, 2002). The Education Act (1996) (Section 19) places a duty on
the Local Education Authority to make suitable provision for excluded pupils, but
such provision does not have to be full time, and many excluded pupils receive as
little as three or four hours of tuition each week, and some actually do not get
any (The Stationery Office73, 1998). With the incorporation of the European
Convention on Human Rights (1950) (ECHR) into English domestic law in the
form of the Human Rights Act (1998) (Diamond, 1999), a controversial issue that
may arise with regard to the exclusion of pupils is the right to education under
Article 2 of the First Protocol to the ECHR (Harris, 2000).
Two recent cases that have arisen under Article 2 of the First Protocol are the
House of Lords decisions in Ali (FC) (Respondent) v. Headteacher and Governors of
Lord Grey School (Appellants) (2006) (Ali case) and R (on the application of
Begum (by her litigation friend, Rahman)(Respondent) v Headteacher and
Governors of Denbigh High School (Appellants) (2006) (Begum case). In the Ali
case, Ali sought damages under sections 6 and 8 of the Human Rights Act (1998)
73
Her Majestys Stationery Office (HMSO).
184
for breach of his right to education under the Education Act (1996) and article 2 of
Protocol 1 to the ECHR. The brief facts of the case revealed that Ali was one of
three pupils seen leaving the classroom before a fire was discovered in a
classroom. He admitted to the police that he had been present but denied any
involvement. The three pupils were subsequently charged with arson. The school
authorities decided to exclude Ali from school pending the criminal investigation
and any ensuing prosecution. When the 45-day cap on the aggregate of periodic
exclusions expired, the school did not exclude the claimant permanently as
required by domestic legislation, because it was awaiting the outcome of the
criminal proceedings. Initially, Ali was sent work to do at home, and later the
school informed the parents to arrange to collect work from the school. However,
Alis parents failed to do so. The school further referred Ali to the Pupil Referral
Unit for tuition, but the offer of tuition was declined.
Later, when the Crown Prosecution decided not to proceed with the case for the
lack of evidence, the school wrote to Alis parents for a meeting to discuss Alis
return to the school. Alis parents did not turn up for the meeting. A few months
later, Alis father wrote to the head teacher seeking his sons reinstatement. The
school replied that having heard nothing from the father, the claimants place had
been allocated to another pupil, and the claimants year group was now oversubscribed, so the school could not take him back. The majority of the Law Lords
agreed that Lord Grey School had failed to follow the procedures laid down by
statute and regulations when excluding Ali, and thus had acted unlawfully under
the domestic education law of England.
185
The issue before the court then was whether the failure of the Lord Grey School to
comply with the domestic law of exclusions meant that it breached the pupils
right to education under Article 2 of the First Protocol to the ECHR. The House of
Lords upheld the schools case that there was no breach of Article 2 of the First
Protocol, because there is no Convention right to be educated in a particular
school and the facts showed that from the moment of exclusion, the school and
the Local Education Authority did not deny Ali effective access to the educational
facilities provided by the country. This case shows that it does not necessarily
mean that a school will be liable in damages for a violation of Article 2 of the First
Protocol, even when it breaches the domestic law of exclusion.
The Begum case was heard immediately after the Ali case and it concerned
Articles 9 and Article 2 of the First Protocol to the ECHR74. In this case, Shabina
Begum, a pupil of Denbigh High School, turned up in school one day in a jilbab, in
breach of the Schools uniform policy. Begum had in the two years preceding the
wearing of the jilbab complied with the uniform policy. Begum argued that as she
was turning into a young woman, the school uniform was not an acceptable form
of dress for her in public. She was sent home to change and asked to return
wearing the correct uniform. Begum went home, but for two years, she neither
attended Denbigh High School nor went to an alternative school where she would
have been permitted to wear the jilbab. Instead, she claimed that she had been
excluded by the school and that her rights under Articles 9 and Article 2 of the
First Protocol to the ECHR had been infringed.
74
Article 2 protects the rights of a child to have an education while Article 9 protects ones freedom
of thought, conscience and religion.
186
The House of Lords, by a majority, held that Denbigh High School had not
interfered with Ms Begums rights, because she had freely chosen the school
knowing what its uniform policy was, and because there was an alternative school,
she could attend where she could manifest her religion. They then went on to
hold, unanimously, that if there was an interference, it was justified because of
the desire of the school to promote inclusiveness in a diverse community and the
fear the pupils had expressed that if the jilbab was permitted they would be
forced to wear it against their will. A shrewd observation made by Blair (2002, p.
46) is that a child could do very little to exercise his or her rights or challenge
the exercise of arbitrary authority if their parents chose not to support them. It
is arguable that rights in education are in fact the rights of parents and not the
child. As for the allegation that Begum was constructively excluded from school
and therefore denied of her right to education, the House of Lords held that she
was never excluded, since she was not directed to stay away, but rather,
encouraged to return to the school wearing the correct uniform.
The fact that the Ali case and the Begum case reached the House of Lords shows
that challenges to any breach of the ECHR or the Human Rights Act (1998) as it
relates to education require careful scrutiny and evaluation, and usually do not
have simple solutions in the first instance.
Expulsion is a severe disciplinary measure and thus, under Section 67 of the School
Standards and Framework Act (1998), the parents of an excluded child may appeal
to an independent panel that has the power to direct that the excluded child be
reinstated. From a principals point of view, having made a professional judgment
to exclude a child, such an order would be the last thing a principal would want to
187
deal with. The case of Re L (a minor), (2003) was a House of Lords case which
looked at the meaning and effect of reinstate and reinstated, an issue that is
of importance not only to individual pupils, but also to education authorities,
school governing bodies, principals, teachers and parents.
It was not disputed that L was involved in a fight that resulted in another pupil
sustaining serious injuries. The matter was investigated by the principal
immediately and the decision taken to exclude L permanently. L exercised his
right to appeal under Section 67. On reviewing the evidence, the independent
panel was of the view that L was not guilty of the specific behaviour of which he
was accused (i.e. kicking the victim repeatedly) and that exclusion was not the
appropriate response. The independent panel allowed the appeal and directed
that L be reinstated immediately.
If Ls teachers had readily reintegrated L into the class, this case would not have
reached the courts, let alone the House of Lords. Instead, the teachers informed
the principal categorically that they were unwilling to teach or supervise L and
were in fact balloting on industrial action75. This left the principal with the
difficult task of deciding how to reinstate L without involving his teachers. To
overcome the problem, the principal decided to institute a special regime
whereby L was taught separately from the rest of the pupils, making use of a
specially engaged retired teacher and a small room about 10 feet square. L was
also segregated socially by imposing on him certain out of bounds rules.
75
In P v. National Association of School Masters/Union of Women Teachers (2003), the House of

Lords had to consider whether it was lawful for teachers to threaten industrial action in opposition
to the decision of the independent appeal panel. It was held by the House of Lords that the
teachers actions were lawful. This leads to the unsatisfactory situation of the school having to
comply with the appeal panels direction to reinstate L on the one hand while on the other hand,
none of the teachers is required to teach or supervise L in or out of the classroom.
188
L took the School to court, alleging that the regime set out by the school did not
amount to reinstatement and that the school had breached the appeal panels
decision that he be reinstated. The judge who heard the application applied the
reasoning given in an earlier case76 dealing with a similar question and dismissed
Ls application. In the earlier case, the presiding judge had said:
In my judgment reinstatement is not to be given any elaborate meaning:
what is intended to be achieved is the removal of the exclusion. It does not
follow that everything has to be put back exactly as it was before the
exclusion. What matters is that the regime applied to the pupil after the
date for reinstatement is a regime that does not involve the continuing
exclusion of the pupil from the schoolI do not think that reinstatement
necessarily entails full reintegration into the classroom even where that was
the previous state of affairs (p. 294).
L then appealed to the Court of Appeal77, which unanimously upheld the lower
courts judgment. L appealed to the House of Lords.
The House of Lords, by majority, dismissed the appeal and went on to define the
meaning of reinstate. To the Law Lords, reinstate means neither restoring the
pupil to status quo ante nor does it mean simply replacing the pupils name on the
school roll. Since legislation does not define the word reinstate, it then
becomes an ordinary English word, the precise meaning of which depends on the
context in which it is used. In the present case, it could not be denied that L had
committed an offence that required disciplinary action by the school. Even if L
76
R (C) v. Governors of B School (2001).
77
In Re L (a minor) (2001).
189
had not been permanently excluded, his indiscipline and the threat and damage it
caused to the functioning of the school would have had to be dealt with in some
other way. The introduction of any disciplinary measures or special regime for an
offending pupil, where no permanent exclusion is proposed, is wholly outside the
scope of Sections 64 to 67 of the Act. As such, the same principle should apply
when, after reinstatement, the school finds it right to introduce such a regime for
the reinstated pupil. As for the meaning of reinstatement, it is simply a
resumption of the pupil-school relationship, and if the school is acting in good
faith, and if the purported reinstatement is not a sham, then it is an inescapable
fact that L was reinstated
It is wrong to treat a requirement of reinstatement as involving a judgment
on the quality of the educational and managerial decisions which the school
makes after resuming its relationship with the pupilit gives the decision of
the independent panel a content beyond that authorised by the statute
(paras. 46 & 48).
The case of L reminds us that, while the law should provide avenues for pupils
who are excluded to appeal, a balance must be struck in requiring a school to
reinstate a child and what form the reinstatement should take, because
interfering with a principals professional judgment on how a pupil should be
reinstated would deprive the principal of his or her right and duty to manage the
school (Teh & Stott, 2006).
Suspension and expulsion of children from schools for disciplinary reasons are a
grave matter and has serious consequences for students. Thus schools across
jurisdictions will continually review legislation and policies to ensure that the
school environment is kept safe through appropriate disciplinary measures, but at
190
the same time, combine discipline with opportunities for students to continue
their education.
5.12.9 Corporal Punishment in Canada

Most school districts in Canada disallow the use of physical discipline on students,
as it is generally agreed that it can lead to abuse rather than serve as an effective
means of dealing with misbehaviour (Anderson & Fraser, 2002). Improper physical
discipline can lead to an allegation of assault, which is illegal. However, Section
43 of the Criminal Code of Canada 1985 provides a defence for teachers who do
mete out corporal punishment. Section 43 states, Every school teacher, parent or
person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of
correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if
the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.
While Section 43 gives teachers some leeway in meting out corporal punishment,
it is not without challenge. In 2001, in the case of Canadian Foundation for
Children, Youth and the Law v. the Attorney General in Right of Canada (2002)
(Canadian Foundation for Children), the validity of Section 43 was challenged.
The issue here did not concern the merits or ill-effects of corporal punishment,
but rather it was concerned with whether Section 43 violated the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedom, Constitution Act (1982) (Charter), in particular,
Sections 12 and 15, which prohibit(ed) cruel and unusual treatment or punishment
and differential treatment on the grounds of age. The case reached the Court of
Appeal, which released its decision on 15 January 2002. In summary, the Court of
Appeal held that Section 43 did not violate the Charter, because it simply creates
a criminal law defence for certain persons who apply reasonable force to children
191
by way of correction [and] by enacting the section, the state cannot be said to
either inflictphysical punishment or be responsible for its infliction (Justice
Goudge in Canadian Foundation for Children). As for the argument that Section 43
subjects children to differential treatment on the grounds of age, the Court
rejected this argument on the basis that Section 43 is justified under Section 1 of
the Charter. Section 1 of the Charter states The Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such
reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and
democratic society. The courts found that since Section 43 defines the limits that
must be observed by parents and teachers, it allows them to perform the
important role of raising and educating children. For these reasons, section 43 is
justifiable (Anderson & Fraser, 2002).
The Canadian public is divided over whether corporal punishment should be

permitted and there is no agreement on the effects of Section 43. However,
there was consensus that Section 43, in particular, the term reasonable force,
should be clarified in order to guide parents, police and child protection workers
better (Brown & Zuker, 2002).
5.12.10 Suspension and Expulsion in Canada

There are notable differences and similarities in the legislation regarding
suspension and expulsion across Canada. These relate to the following: (1) the
person empowered to suspend or expel a student; (2) the meaning of suspension
and expulsion and the grounds for the same; (3) appeal procedures; (4) the role
of school boards; and (5) the requirement to provide alternative education for
192
excluded students (Bell & Trpanier, 2001)78. The laws and regulations are not
vastly different from those of other jurisdictions. However, an interesting
development that has taken place in Ontario will be briefly mentioned.
In Ontario, a law was passed in 2001 to establish mandatory grounds for

suspension and expulsion of students (Section 306 of the Education Act [1990]).
Under this law, school officials and school boards were required to impose a
suspension or expulsion where an infraction, contained in the list of infractions set
out in statute, had been committed. Contrary to the principles of natural justice
and due process, this new law permits, in stipulated circumstances, a zerotolerance policy, and a limited expulsion is to be imposed by a principal without
a hearing, thus denying students the procedural protection normally enjoyed by
them. However, on June 4, 2007, Bill 212, Education Amendment Act (Progressive
Discipline and School Safety) [2007]), was passed to provide a more balanced
approach. Under this new legislation, which came into effect on 1 February 2008,
a principal can only recommend expulsion where an investigation has been
properly conducted (Section 310 of the Education Act [1990]). But although the
mandatory grounds for expulsion have been removed, they still apply for
suspension, and in addition, bullying has been included in the list of infractions for
which suspension must be considered79 (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2007).
78
Please refer to: The Safe Schools Act of Ontario:A lesson for the rest of the country: How not to
do it" Presented by John P. Bell and Jennifer E. Trpanier at the 2001 Conference for the Canadian
Association for the Practical Study of the Law in Education, for a full summary of the differences and
similarities.
79
Section 306 - A suspension is possible if a student commits any of the following infractions:
1. Uttering a threat to inflict serious bodily harm on another person.
2. Possessing alcohol or illegal drugs.
3. Being under the influence of alcohol.
4. Swearing at a teacher or at another person in a position of authority.
5. Committing an act of vandalism that causes extensive damage to school property at the
pupil's school or to property located on the premises of the pupil's school.
6. Bullying.
193
5.12.11 Corporal Punishment in South Africa

The relationship between teachers and students in South Africa was first
established at common law, and corporal punishment was seen as a lawful means
of disciplining students (Giles, 1988). However, in the Constitutional Court case
of S v. Williams (1995), the dispute centred around the question of whether the
use of corporal punishment to deal with juveniles was constitutionally justifiable.
Applying the principle that everyone has the right to have his human dignity
respected, the court held that corporal punishment is unconstitutional. The South
African Schools Act (1996), enacted subsequent to this case, stipulates that
corporal punishment in a school is prohibited (Oosthuizen, 2003). This prohibition
has created many problems for teachers, and also for schools that have previously
used corporal punishment as the primary means of maintaining discipline. An
investigation conducted by Matodzi (2000) reveals that educators perceive
corporal punishment to be essential in maintaining discipline and this may suggest
that corporal punishment is still widely used in South African schools despite the
prohibition. But with the international pressure on preserving the rights of a child,
South Africa will have to take more active steps in enforcing the ban on corporal
punishment.
7.
Section
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Any other activity that is an activity for which a principal may suspend a pupil under a
policy of the board.
310 - A suspension is mandatory for the following infractions:
Possessing a weapon, including possessing a firearm.
Using a weapon to cause or to threaten bodily harm to another person.
Committing physical assault on another person that causes bodily harm requiring treatment
by a medical practitioner.
Committing sexual assault.
Trafficking in weapons or in illegal drugs.
Committing robbery.
Giving alcohol to a minor.
Any other activity that, under a policy of a board, is an activity for which a principal must
suspend a pupil and, therefore in accordance with this Part, conduct an investigation to
determine whether to recommend the board that the pupil be expelled.
194
5.12.12 Suspension and Expulsion in South Africa

Suspension and expulsion, as discussed so far, are also employed by schools in South
Africa to maintain discipline. A code of conduct is adopted by each school to
manage the learning environment of the school and the code is to be adopted only
after consultation with children, parents and educators (South African Schools Act
(1996), section 8(1) and (2) )80. Under section 8(5) of the South African Schools Act
(1996), the code of conduct has to contain provisions of due process, and in a report
by Maithufi, 1997, he suggested that this implied that the code of conduct must
comply with section 33 of the Constitution of South Africa (1996), which provides
that everyone has the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and
procedurally fair, and to be given written reasons. Thus, the principle of natural
justice similarly applies in South Africa. Further, where a child who is subject to
compulsory education is expelled from school, alternative arrangements for him or
her must be made at another school (section 9(5) of the South African Schools
[1996]).
5.13
Criminal Offences, Defamation and Family Law
Schools are confronted with many other areas of legal involvement besides those
discussed above. These include criminal offences, defamation and family law.
Criminal offences involving students may be in the form of breaking and entering,
vandalism of school buildings and equipment, physical abuse such as indecent
dealing or assault, the possession of illegal substances, and theft.
Defamation occurs when a person makes false statements that harm anothers
reputation. In schools, this can occur in a number of ways. For example, when a
80
See The South African Schools Act 1996 from http://www.info.gov.za/acts/1996/a84-96.pdf
195
teacher writes an inaccurate comment in a students school record, it can lead to

a libel suit, or when he or she participates in a gossip session in the teachers
room, he or she may be guilty of slander. In Australia, a research study conducted
by Stewart (1996a) revealed that school administrators had to manage litigation or
threats of litigation associated with allegations of defamation. Defamation actions
were initiated against or by teachers or school administrators and, in one case, by
a parent against another parent.
With the high level of family breakdowns in society, teachers are experiencing an
increased amount of exposure to the legal consequences of divorce and
separation. As the nature of a teachers job involves much interaction with
students and families, the teachers knowledge of the important aspects and
development of family law becomes essential (Harris,1997). To give one example,
teachers frequently encounter court orders, such as parenting orders. Parenting
orders can take the form of residence orders, which deal with whom a child
lives, contact orders, which provide for a parent or other person to have
contact with the child, and specific issues orders, which deal with any other
aspect of parental responsibility, including responsibility for the long-term or dayto-day care, welfare and development of the child.
Sometimes, teachers are confronted with orders that can affect a parents contact
or authority over a child, such as family protection orders and child welfare
orders. At other times, teachers have to deal with situations where parents
deliberately breach court orders, as in the case of a parent abducting a child from
school contrary to a residence or contact order. In all these situations, teachers
are required to act in accordance with the parents legal obligations created by
196
the court order and if necessary to report to the relevant authorities the breach of
any orders. This area of law is and will be constantly changing as more emphasis is
put on the rights of the child. As teachers spend a significant amount of time with
students, the teachers continued involvement with family law will be inevitable.
5.14
Summary and Discussion
The literature review of education and the law in the US, Australia, New Zealand,
England, Canada and South Africa in the preceding pages reveals many areas of
legislative and common law that concern education and influence policies and
practices. A brief summary of the trends that have emerged in the comparative
jurisdictions and the extent to which they have application to Singapore is
discussed below.
5.14.1 Compulsory Education, Special Needs and Child Abuse

There is clear evidence that, in all the jurisdictions looked at, compulsory
education is seen as very important, and they all have some form of legislation
that regulate it. When Singapore acceded to the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child in 1995, it expressly reserved the right not to make education
compulsory, but, subsequently, compulsory education was introduced in Singapore
in 2003.
Legislation and policies concerning student records (privacy) and student with
disabilities also feature prominently. In particular, there is a widespread trend
towards protecting the rights of children with disabilities to have a proper
education. In many of these countries, there is national legislation protecting the
educational rights of these children, including human rights legislation to assist
197
parents who may feel aggrieved by the type of education provided for their
special needs children.
In Singapore, education for children with disabilities is provided by Voluntary

Welfare Organisations (VWOs), which run special education schools. Pupils who
are capable of sitting for the Primary School Leaving Examination are encouraged
to do so, and if they are successful, they leave the special education schools to
continue their education in mainstream secondary schools (Ministry of Education,
2000a). Article 23 of the CRC states, in part, that in recognising the special needs
of the disabled childthe assistance extendedshall be designed to ensure that
the disabled child has effective access to and receives educationin a manner
conducive of the childs achieving the fullest possible social integration and
individual development As a signatory of the CRC, this provision will have
significant implications for mainstream schools educating children with
disabilities, in that there will be a need to develop policies on enrolment,
management and discipline of disabled students.
With regard to child abuse, various items of legislation in different countries make
it a legal requirement for teachers to report any signs of abuse suffered by a child
(Webb & Vulliamy, 2001; De Wet, 2002; Fischer et al., 2003; Brown & Zuker,
2002). This is clearly another issue that is relevant to the Singapore context.
Children who suffer child abuse at home may suffer neglect, physical injury, and
sexual and emotional abuse. The Children and Young Persons Act (Cap. 38, 1993)
(CYPA) of Singapore enables any person who knows, or has reasons to suspect,
that a child is abused to report his or her suspicion to the proper authority with
impunity, so long as it is done in good faith (Section 87, CYPA). As it is not
198
mandatory in Singapore for teachers or the school to report suspicions of child

abuse, the question arises as to what role a teacher or school has to play in
protecting children from abuse and neglect. Research has shown that more
children disclose the existence of abuse to teachers than to anyone else (Webb &
Vulliamy, 2001). Instead of waiting for legislation to make it a statutory obligation
for teachers to report suspected cases of child abuse, it may be argued that
teachers in Singapore have a common law duty to report such cases, and failure to
do so could amount to negligence resulting in foreseeable harm suffered by the
child.
5.14.2 Tort of Negligence - trends

In the literature review, there was clearly an increased trend of school-related
negligence cases being taken to court. While one would expect negligence cases
to involve mainly physical injuries, the literature revealed that other issues, such
as bullying, sexual misconduct and educational malpractice were also linked to
the tort of negligence.
In the area of bullying, the cases showed that legal action was not taken because
a child was bullied in school, but rather, because the school failed to respond
adequately to complaints or information about the bullying, thus resulting in
injury. Take the example of the bullying case in a Singapore school mentioned in
Chapter One81: the mother of a bully victim had said in a newspaper interview
that simply talking to the perpetrators was not the solution. If they do not check
the bullies, they will get bolder. Then, from verbal abuse, they will move on to
bumping into you, then hitting you (Bullied, 2003). In Singapore, where the
81
See Chapter One page 9.
199
government is making unprecedented efforts to increase the population, children

are seen as precious commodities, and parents, naturally, are becoming more and
more protective of their own children. The failure of a school to manage any
incidence of physical violence on its premises can be seen by these parents as a
breach of the schools duty of care to provide a safe learning environment for
their children.
Another issue that emerged from the literature was that of sexual misconduct of
teachers. Although it is reasonable to assume that teachers should be personally
liable for any sexual misconduct, cases have shown that school authorities may be
vicariously liable in those situations where the employment duties satisfy the
close connection test, or when an organisation negligently affords the
opportunity for a teacher to carry out the offence. No one would argue that
schools are not under a duty to prevent sexual abuse or harassment occurring
within the school premises. However, the question that needs to be considered is:
What is the schools role when there is an allegation of teacher misconduct
towards a student outside the school? As seen in Chapter Three, this issue has
already emerged in the Singapore education scene82.
There are guidelines for teachers, set out by both the Ministry of Education
(MOE) and within the school, about the student-teacher relationship. As
rightly noted by Anderson and Fraser (2002, p. 184), unlike other professions,
teachers never lose their characterisation as a teacher, regardless of the
circumstances of a situation. Although the age of sexual consent in Singapore is
16, a teacher, being in the position of trust or authority, will unlikely be able
82
Chapter Three, page 65.
200
to use the defence of consent to escape professional misconduct, even if he or

she is not guilty of a criminal offence. To ensure that teachers do not pose a risk
to students in Singapore, schools and the MOE may have to take more steps than
just setting out guidelines. Additional measures could be taken in the form of
tighter screening during hiring processes, checking of references, investigating
suspicions or allegations carefully, and ensuring that substantiated incidents are
properly dealt with (Brown & Zuker, 2002).
Another surprising area of law that has emerged under the tort of negligence is
that of educational malpractice. While cases of such a nature are usually
dismissed, the House of Lords case of Phelps83 established the principle that
schools can be made liable to a pupil if the pupil can point to identifiable and
specific reasons, within the schools control, for his or her failure to learn.
5.14.3 Behaviour Management and Other Areas

Although common law does not prohibit corporal punishment, there is a universal
trend, as seen in the overview, towards banning it, with a call to respecting a
childs right not to be subject to torture or to inhumane or degrading treatment
or punishment (Article 3 of the ECHR). While advocates of corporal punishment
may argue that the punishment administered in schools is generally not
degrading, parents who are against it claim a right to have their child educated
in conformity with their philosophical convictions. Schools therefore have a
difficult task of striking a balance between providing a safe environment for the
whole school community and a childs individual rights. These rights include a
83
See page 161 for details of the case.
201
childs right to natural justice and due process when suspension and expulsion are
utilised as an alternative form of discipline.
Schools exist within society, and, in a way, they can even be described as a
microcosm of society, with schools seeing more and more aspects of criminal,
tort, corporate, administrative, constitutional and family law entering the school
scene. In the area of family law, the breakdown of family relationships has
consequences for schools, as they (the schools) have to deal with the effects of
broken families. It is reported that divorce and annulments cases increased from
2,111 in 1982 to 5,825 cases in 2002 (Teo, 2003). With this increase in family
breakdowns, Singaporean schools will inevitably experience an increased amount
of exposure to the legal consequences of divorce and separation. As pointed out
by Harris (1997), since the nature of a teachers job involves much interaction
with students and families, the teachers knowledge of the important aspects and
development of family law becomes essential. Conversations with principals and
teachers reveal that they frequently receive requests from non-custodial parents
to allow them to see their children on the school premises. In these situations,
educators need to know the parents legal obligations created by a court order
and how to act appropriately.
5.15
Conclusion
Stewart (1998b) argues that the increase in legislation and case law involving
education signifies that education has indeed become legalised. In Singapore,
though, there is neither sufficient case law nor a substantial increase in schoolrelated legislation to suggest that education in Singapore has also become
legalised. However, the landscape of education in Singapore is changing and,
202
moreover, the survey of education and the law in this chapter has identified issues
in other jurisdictions that are very much the same problems that are seen in
Singapore education.
Singapore society is indeed changing. This can be observed from the way members
of the public take on ministers and policies in public forums. The government is
also leaning towards de-controlling and de-regulating more and more
activities in the country in an effort to wean the people off dependence on the
government. What does this mean for schools? The Education Minister, Tharman
Shanmugaratnam, made it clear that MOE will adopt a hands-off approach when
it comes to decision making by schools. We cant have them calling up the
ministry to ask, What shall I do in this instance? We wont get strong schools and
strong principals if we do that (Nirmala, 2004, p.10). This gives a clear signal
that the MOE is moving towards granting greater authority and responsibility to
schools.
Schools are not unfamiliar with the stance taken by the MOE. Changes have been
taking place in the education system. Autonomous secondary schools and
increased decentralisation through the cluster schools system were implemented
in the early 1990s to give principals greater decision-making powers over a wide
range of matters (Sharpe & Gopinathan, 2002). As Singapore continues to review
the education system in order to overcome the challenges of globalization and
technological innovation, there will be a corresponding move towards
professionalising the teaching profession (Gopinathan & Sharpe, 2001, p. 23). With
the best interest of the child as a guiding principle, it might be argued that
professionalism is not limited to a teachers pedagogical competency, but will also
203
include the teachers ability to take care of a childs physical and emotional wellbeing. This chapter has shown that the law does, amongst other things, place a
duty on teachers and schools to exercise such a duty of care.
With society demanding a higher level of accountability from professions generally

and the move by MOE towards granting more autonomy to schools, principals will
be expected to be knowledgeable about and efficient in all matters affecting
administration. This will include areas of law affecting education, and the
literature has shown that schools involvement with the law does have an impact
on school administration. For example, in the area of negligence resulting in
physical injuries suffered by students, inappropriate school policies or practices
may result in allegations of negligence leading to personal injury. An awareness of
the common law cases and legal principles regarding this area of law will enable
school administrators to implement relevant policies to avoid such allegations.
This is just one example, but it makes the point that principals need to be
knowledgeable about various areas of law that are of central importance to school
administrators. When principals have an understanding of the areas of law
affecting schools, they will then be able to implement legal risk management
strategies to meet the challenges and demands created by a constantly changing
society, and, hopefully, in this way, avoid any unwelcome legal challenges.
In the next chapter, the findings of Phase 2 of the research strategies (the Pilot
Study) are set out and discussed.
204
CHAPTER SIX
THE PILOT STUDY ON
SCHOOLS AND THE LAW: A STUDY OF THE LEGAL KNOWLEDGE HELD AND
NEEDED BY PRINCIPALS IN SINGAPORE SCHOOLS WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR THE
LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF SCHOOLS
6.1
Introduction
Singaporeans, in comparison with the Americans, the Australians or the British,

are not a litigious people. At least, not yet. But as shown in earlier chapters,
Singapore is caught up in a fast changing world where, among other things, the
question of rights (especially of children) feature prominently. Do schools, then,
today function in a complex legal environment where legal issues affect the lives
of teachers, students, parents and administrators? If so, to what extent should
teachers and administrators become legally literate? What are the norms, and
what is the threshold?
In chapter one, legal literacy is defined as a basic knowledge of those areas of

law that have a direct bearing on educators responsibilities. It means that
teachers and principals should be armed with information about the law that
affects them, not for the purpose of being their own lawyer, but rather to know
their legal rights and responsibilities so that school practices can stand up to
scrutiny. Some areas of law that affect educators were briefly discussed in
Chapter Four. Although there are not as many statutes that govern the teaching
profession in Singapore in as other Commonwealth countries, nevertheless, there
are numerous regulations, by-laws and policies that dictate how teachers and
principals are to carry out their professional responsibilities. Teachers may not
realise this, but they face potential threat of legal action even as they carry out
their daily routine. Incidents ranging from downloading software from the internet
205
for teaching purposes to students sustaining injuries during unofficial outings can
have serious legal consequences.
In recent years, there has been much interest in and publicity about school
related issues and incidents involving the law. Two such incidents were the Kent
Ridge Secondary School pornography VCD case and the sexual assault cases
concerning two male teachers and their students84. To understand this notion of
legal literacy among educators, in particular leaders in schools, a pilot study
was conducted to gauge the relevance and importance of law to school principals,
and to find out the views of principals with regard to schools and the law, and
in particular the knowledge held and perceived to be needed by them.
6.2
The Sample
The six principals involved in this pilot study were chosen from three primary and
three secondary government and government-aided schools. The educational
institutions did not include junior colleges, special education schools and the
institutes of technical education. Primary and secondary schools were chosen
because they consist of the largest number of students in the 7 to 16 age range.
Independent schools were also excluded, as they operate in a separate legal
framework. In any similar research, they might thus receive separate attention.
The sample chosen was selected from a list of principals that the researcher knew
personally or from recommendations by professors in the National Institute of
Education. Eight principals (present and past) were approached to participate in
the study and of the eight, six agreed to take part. The two who did not take part
84
See Chapter Four, p. 88 and Chapter Three, p. 62, footnote 29 for case notes.
206
cited the lack of time as a reason for their inability to do so; and both were
female principals, one from a government-aided secondary school and the other
from a government secondary school.
Of the six respondents, two were female. Their ages ranged from 41 to 60. The
youngest respondent was a female principal of a primary single-sex governmentaided school and she had at least 16 years of experience in the education
profession but less than five years experience as a principal. All the other
respondents had over 20 years of experience in the education service inclusive of
principalship of at least 6 to 15 years. Five respondents attended leadership
training before becoming a principal. Two of the respondents (a male and a
female) were also formerly superintendents in charge of school clusters. One of
the respondents was a recently retired principal who left the education service in
January 2004. Another respondent had over 20 years of experience in the
education service but less than five years experience as a teacher and less than
five years experience as a principal. Further questioning revealed that, during
the time that he was not in schools, he was an administrator in the Ministry of
Education. During that period, he was seconded to the Foreign Service for four
years to manage a student office in Los Angeles. He was the only respondent who
had held a management or leadership position outside schools. However, his
experience outside schools did not seem to make his responses significantly
different from those of the other respondents. A summary of the sample is shown
in Table 6.1 below.
207
Table 6.1
Sample Gender & Types of School
School
Gender (Respondent-R)
Number
Yrs of Experience
as Principal
Primary (Aided)
Female (R1)
<5
Primary (Government)
Female (R2)
6 to 10
Male (R3)
> 15
Male (R4, R5, R6)
(R4) 11 to 15
Secondary (Government)
(R5) < 5
(R6) 6 to 10
Total: 6
As the sample for the pilot study was comparatively small, the responses of the six
principals were not considered representative of the views of all principals in
primary or secondary government or government-aided schools. However, the
diversity of experience and background gives some reasonable indication of the
relative importance of the law as it relates to education and to principals jobs in
Singapore. The responses could also be considered a tentative answer to the
question of whether there was a need for principals to be more conversant with
their legal obligations as school leaders. In the following pages, the principals
(respondents) are referred to as R1 to R6.
6.3
The Research
6.3.1 Methods
Two methods were used to collect the data. The first was the use of a
questionnaire to seek certain factual information about the respondents, such as
years of experience as teacher and principal, types of school they were heading,
age, knowledge of areas of law, involvement with legal action or threatened legal
action, and familiarity with the Principals Handbook.
208
The second method used was the personal interview. Single person interview
(instead of a focus group discussion) was chosen, because it was difficult to
arrange a suitable time where all the participants could meet together. It was also
hoped that, by conducting a face to face interview, the principals would be more
open and candid about their views on the subject.
6.3.2 Conduct of Research

Appointments were made with the principals to administer the questionnaires in
person and to carry out the interviews immediately thereafter. The meetings took
place in the following places: one in the researchers home, one in the
respondents home, two in the respondents offices and the remaining two in a
meeting room at the respondents respective condominiums. Apart from the
meetings in the respondents offices, the rest were conducted outside office
hours.
As the questionnaire was administered face to face, the respondents were quite
prepared to give unsolicited comments concerning the research topic, as well as
to clarify certain answers they had given in the questionnaire. A copy of the
questionnaire is attached as Appendix 2A.
Permission was sought to tape record the interviews and four principals consented
to it. One of the two interviews that occurred in the respondents office was
occasionally interrupted because of urgent matters that the respondent had to
attend to but the interview was successfully completed. There was a total of 11
interview questions. The interview questions are shown in Appendix 2B.
209
6.4
Analysis of the Questionnaire
6.4.1 Knowledge of areas of law that affect school administration

The analysis of items 1 to 7 of the questionnaire in paragraph 2 above described
the background of the principals. Question 8 of the questionnaire asked the
principals to indicate the extent to which they had knowledge of the areas of law
that affected their conduct as principals. The respondents were asked to mark one
of the following three categories: no knowledge, some knowledge or a lot of
knowledge.
No respondent marked the no knowledge category. R4, on the other hand,

indicated that he had a lot of knowledge about areas of the law affecting
principalship. R4 was formerly a principal and superintendent, but was now
seconded to another part of the education service. All the other respondents
marked the some knowledge category. R2 was also a former superintendent,
but she indicated that she only had some knowledge of areas of law affecting her
as a principal. She was now heading a primary school. Further discussion was
carried out with R2 and R4 to clarify their answers to this question (Question 8). It
was found that the difference in the answers lay in the experiences that each had
in respect of legal issues arising in their schools. R2 said that her knowledge of
school law was obtained from experiences in dealing with duty of care issues and
handling of parental complaints concerning those issues. R4, on the other hand,
said that apart from duty of care issues and parental complaints, he also had to
handle matters concerning the financial propriety of principals, and police/MOE
investigations of teachers misconduct.
210
It is interesting to note that although R1 had the least number of years of

experience as a principal, her response was similar to the other principals who had
comparatively more experience. This suggests that years of experience as a
principal is not necessarily predictive of a principals knowledge of legal issues
affecting school administration. In fact, R1s response may indicate the possibility
that principals have to deal with law related issues in the school the moment they
become principals. This could also be indicative of an increase in litigious matters
in the last five years.
Admittedly, the principals responses to this question may be interpreted in a

number of ways. Having some knowledge of areas of law that affect
principalship might mean having encountered certain legal issues (such as duty of
care) in schools. For a principal to claim to have a lot of knowledge, it might
mean that he or she encountered more legal issues than other schools did.
Applying this standard, the respondents may arguably have had no knowledge of
law affecting schools at all!
Bearing in mind the limitations of this question, all the respondents claimed that
they had, to a certain extent, knowledge of the law affecting schools. A discussion
of Questions 9 and 12 of the questionnaire may indicate the actual knowledge of
legal issues held by the respondents.
6.4.2 Familiarity with the Principals Handbook

Question 9 asked the respondents how familiar they were with the Principals
Handbook. The Principals Handbook deals with a wide array of issues, such as the
education system in Singapore, the administration of the school, school
211
curriculum, accounts, and personnel. Under administration of school, the role and
position of the principal and his or her duties and responsibilities within the school
are set out. Although the Principals Handbook does not expressly state that these
duties and responsibilities are mandatory, breach of some of these guidelines may
have legal implications for the principals. An example is B298 of the Principals
Handbook, which states that no corporal punishment can be administered to a
girl. What is not stated, however, is that the breach of this paragraph in the
Principals Handbook is also an offence under Section 88 of the Education
(Schools) Regulations, which is subsidiary legislation of the Education Act (Cap.
87, [1957]). The Principals Handbook is both a rule book and a guide book, in that
some of the sections in it are stated as Rules while others are referred to as
Guidelines. The Principals Handbook applies equally to government and
government-aided schools, although there are slight variations in some of the
guidelines and rules for government-aided schools. A major difference is that of
sanctions for offences committed by aided school employees. Because aided
school employees are not government officers, they cannot be subjected to
disciplinary action under the Education Service Commission and the Public Service
Commission85.
The only principal that indicated that she was not familiar with the Principals
Handbook (because she did not refer to it) was R1, who was heading a
government-aided school. R1 had the least number of years of experience as a
principal. The others indicated that they were moderately familiar with the
Principals Handbook. For R1, it was apparent that her knowledge of school law
85
However, under the Education (Grant in Aid) Regulations, the Permanent Secretary of Education
has the power to direct the School Management Committee of a government-aided school to take
disciplinary action against its employee.
212
was not obtained from the Principals Handbook but probably originated from her
having to deal with incidents that had legal implications.
6.4.3 Involvement in areas of law

Question 12 looked at the principals actual knowledge of areas of law affecting
schools by asking them to indicate the legal issues in which their teachers, their
schools or they themselves had been involved. They were also asked to give a
brief description of those areas of law. Table 6.2 sets out the number of
respondents having some experience with legal action or threatened legal action
concerning areas of law.
Table 6.2
Involvement with legal action or threatened legal action

Areas of Law
Number of
Respondents
Corporal punishment
Negligence involving physical welfare of students
Criminal Offences
Family Law
Contracts
Other areas of law
6.4.3.1 Corporal Punishment

Cases involving corporal punishment were instances where teachers used
inappropriate methods of inflicting corporal punishment on their students.
Examples given were pulling of the ears till they bled, slapping, imposition of
213
strenuous exercises, and in one case, verbal abuse. In most of these cases, the
parents threatened to take legal action against the teacher or school for causing
hurt to their children. According to the Principals Handbook and the Education
(Schools) Regulations, Education Act (Cap. 87, [1957]), corporal punishment can
only be administered by the principal in accordance with the procedures set out
therein. In addition to the possibility of legal actions being taken by parents
against a teacher for assault, the respondents who handled such cases were aware
that disciplinary proceedings could be conducted against the teacher for
misconduct under the Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations,
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1965). However, what was not
ascertained in the questionnaire or interview was whether the respondents knew
that the Director-General of Education had the discretion to make a complaint
against a teacher in order for that teacher to be charged with an offence (which is
punishable by a fine) under the Education Act (Cap.87, 1957)86.
6.4.3.2 Negligence
R2 mentioned a negligence case that concerned the blinding of a childs eye by a
classroom door handle. At the time of the interview, the case was still under
investigation. Although the other respondents did not refer to any specific
negligence cases in the questionnaire, all of them voiced their concerns about this
area of law during the interviews. Among the concerns mentioned were teachers
failure to see the importance of supervising school grounds during breaks, the
need for regular inspection of the school compound for dangerous objects87,
accidents occurring during excursions and accidents caused by defective furniture
86
87
Sections 61, 62(2) and 64 of the Act.
R2 related an incident where a child cut herself with an iron rod that she found lying along the
school fence.
214
or structures in school. These concerns were compounded by the fact that

parents were increasingly more prepared to seek justice and compensation for any
injury suffered by their child.
6.4.3.3 Criminal Offences

All the respondents were familiar with instances of staff or students, either in
their own school or in their colleagues school, who were in breach of the criminal
law. They included molestation cases by teachers on students, child abuse cases
within families and juvenile offences. For child abuse cases and juvenile offences,
the schools were often involved in assisting the authorities with investigations. As
assisting the authorities in investigations of criminal offences did not give a clear
indication as to whether the principals had sufficient legal literacy in this area, a
larger scale study may be needed to find out the criminal offences that schools
are involved with. For example, how would a principal deal with sexual
misconduct of staff, or possession of an illegal substance by a student?
6.4.3.4 Family Law

In the area of family law, custody issues were commonly cited. Related to custody
issues was the question of releasing confidential information concerning a child to
a non-custodial parent or his solicitor. The respondents cited the importance of
legal literacy in this area, as they were often uncertain as to when they were
allowed or not allowed to release such information.
6.4.3.5 Contracts
The respondents expressed concern about their inexperience in vetting contracts
and their lack of understanding of the principles of contract. In one case, a Head
215
of Department entered into a contract without the principals authorisation. In

another, the school was threatened with legal action for breach of contract.
6.4.3.6 Other Areas of Law

Three other areas of law were also mentioned. One was an administrative law
issue involving a principal accepting a dinner invitation by a service provider after
the end of a contract. The principal was called up for questioning by the CPIB. The
other two areas of law concerned copyright issues and sexual abuse incidents.
Some respondents had to face the difficult task of reporting a students family
members to the authorities for sexual abuse. Although the schools were not
directly involved in any legal action where these abuse cases were concerned, the
respondents found that they needed to be knowledgeable about the law in this
area so that they might know how to handle such incidents.
6.4.3.7 Sources of Legal Literacy

Questions 10 and 11 of the questionnaire asked the respondents whether they
were aware of the establishment and functions of the legal department in the
Ministry of Education (MOE). Two out of the six respondents were not aware of
the existence of this department. It appears that the setting up of the legal
department in the MOE had not been widely publicised.
Question 13 asked whether the respondents were members of the STU or any
other teaching unions. All the respondents answered in the affirmative.
Question 14 asked the respondents if they were aware of Singapores position in

relation to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). Only
216
R3 (the retired principal) was aware. Under the Convention, a childs rights are
clearly provided for and principals should arguably be cognisant of these rights
and know where their responsibilities lie in relation to them.
6.5
Analysis of the Interviews
The purpose of this pilot study was to find out the knowledge of areas of law held
and needed by school principals. The analysis of the interviews is thus divided
into three categories: the knowledge of school law held by school principals; the
knowledge of school law held and needed by school principals; and the knowledge
of school law needed by school principals.
6.5.1 Knowledge of areas of law held by school principals (Case Study)
Case Study (Interview Question 8): A primary one student and parent accuse a
teacher of inflicting corporal punishment and throwing the students book in the
air. The principal investigated but did not give the teacher a copy of the report.
The teacher is adamant that such an incident did not occur and sent a lawyers
letter to the parent asking for an apology. As a principal, how would you deal
with this situation, and what are the legal issues involved here?
The legal issues involved in this case are:

a.
Possible defamation of the teacher by the parent.
b.
Breach of paragraph 80 of the Instruction Manual 2 (IM2) for civil
servants which states: An officer must first get the written approval of his
Permanent Secretary in person before he can start legal proceedings in his own
personal interest for matters arising out of his official duties.
c.
Disciplinary proceedings can be taken against an officer for breach of
paragraph 80 of the IM2.
217
Only R1 identified the first issue. No respondent identified issues 2 and 3,

although R4 mentioned that the principal should have advised the teacher to seek
legal advice from the MOE. R6 even said the principal could not stop the teacher
from sending the lawyers letter. The general response was that the principal in
the case study should interview the parties separately and find out the truth first.
The responses here indicate that the respondents were not very familiar with all
the regulations that govern their job. In this case, principals ignorance
compounds teachers ignorance!
6.5.2 Knowledge of areas of law held and needed by school principals
Interview Question 4: One of the general principles of the United Nations

Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) is that children who are capable of
forming their own views shall be given the right to express their opinions on all
matters concerning themselves. How does this principle affect your role as school
principal in the management of students?
Three of the respondents (R1, R3, R5) indicated that their personal style of
leadership conformed to this principle, in that they actively encouraged their
students to express their views and make decisions on issues that affected them.
The other three respondents (R2, R4, R6) agreed that the right way to go would be
to progress towards greater respect for this UN principle, but they felt that at the
primary school, students would still require a high level of intervention by way of
rules and guidelines. Although only R3 was familiar with the Convention, all the
respondents agreed that this UN principle would change their style of
management of students from one of control to consultation, with more and more
space being created for students to express themselves. However, two
218
respondents (R4, R5) observed that some teachers might not be ready for this. R5
gave the example that in his school, some secondary students canvassed for ankle
socks to be allowed in the school but were told by their teachers that regular
socks were more proper. This respondent felt that the teachers should allow these
students to express themselves and convince the school why they should be
allowed to wear ankle socks instead of refusing them at the outset. The responses
here demonstrate the important role that principals play in promoting the
Conventions principles.
Interview Question 7: To what extent has the recent Kent Ridge Secondary
School porn case88 made you more or less anxious about reacting to or
handling student infringement incidents?
Four out of the six respondents (R1, R2, R4 and R5) said that the Kent Ridge
incident had made them more cautious about handling cases that had legal
implications. They felt that it had made them realise that there is a need to be
more consultative, either with their teachers, superintendent or MOE. It also
highlighted to them the importance of having good communication skills when
dealing with parents. Two other respondents (R3, R6), on the other hand, said
that this case did not have any effect on them, because they would not have
reported the incident to the police but, instead, would have handled the situation
at school level.
88
In this case, the school discovered a pornographic VCD in the possession of one of its students.
Further questioning revealed that 16 others were involved. The 17 students were kept outside the
general office for several hours without food and drink while the police were called. One of the
students had Hirschsprungs disease, a condition where the walls of his intestines may fuse together
if he were deprived of food and drink, and the school was informed about this condition. The issues
raised were whether the police should have been called, whether the discipline master or school
counsellor should have dealt with the matter instead, and whether the punishment (detention
without food and drink) was too harsh. Also, what was the role of the parents in all this?
219
The responses of R3 and R6 showed a lack of understanding of the law in this

regard. Under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68, 1955), every person who is
aware of certain criminal offences being committed must inform the police.
Although in this particular case, mandatory reporting was not required89, it would
have been prudent for principals to get advice from the superintendent or MOE
before taking matters into their own hands so as not to break the law
unknowingly. By knowing where they stood in law, principals would be able to
weigh up the legal requirements against the educational requirements of
educating and moulding students when making any decisions that would have a
significant impact on the students.
6.5.3 Knowledge of areas of law perceived to be needed by school principals

Interview Question 1: As a principal, what do you perceive are the areas of law
that affect school administration?
Four of the principals (R1, R4, R5, R6) were of the view that contract law and
financial management of school funds play an important role in school
administration. One of the reasons cited was the greater autonomy given to school
principals. With increased autonomy, these respondents found themselves having
to make financial decisions that were previously dealt with by the MOE. They
realised that principals not only need to be aware of the basic law of contract,
such as procurement and enforceability, but they also need to be knowledgeable
of the law and regulations regarding the spending of public funds.
89
It is an offence under the Films Act (Cap. 10, 1981) to possess an obscene film, but it is not an
offence stipulated under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68, 1955), which a member of the
public, who has knowledge of the same, is legally required to report.
220
One principal (R1) saw the importance of copyright law in school administration.
She felt in particular the importance of knowing about intellectual property
rights, i.e., ownership of invention produced by teachers or students.
Two of the principals (R1, R2) felt that as parents and other stakeholders become
more aware of their rights, schools would be involved in litigation at some stage.
As parents express their rights more vocally and aggressively, the principals found
themselves experiencing more harassment from parents. These principals wanted
to know their rights and boundaries as far as the law is concerned.
Two of the principals (R3, R5) felt that as schools are part of the larger
community, schools would have to deal increasingly with issues relating to
children and their families. By this, they meant custody disputes which take place
in schools and which principals must deal with in an appropriate manner. Related
to this is the issue of confidentiality. R3 noted that teachers sometimes
unwittingly release confidential information of their students to non-custodial
parents, guardians or even to private agencies. In a more serious situation, a
student might even be allowed to leave the school with a non-custodial parent or
guardian. The respondents felt that as schools grapple with family issues that
inevitably make their way into the schools, they have to be familiar with the law
relating to family and children.
All the respondents recognised the need to be knowledgeable about safety issues
and this included monitoring the use of corporal punishment and avoiding
accidents caused by the negligence of teachers.
221
One principal (R5) made an interesting observation that parents are now more
likely to complain of teacher incompetence, i.e., educational negligence90.
Although it is unlikely for the Singapore courts to accept claims of educational
negligence due to the difficulty in establishing a causal link between the breach of
duty of care and the harm suffered, this principals observation was still relevant
in the present climate. This is because, by having awareness that negligence can
possibly extend to non-physical injury, principals could encourage teachers to
aspire for the high professional standard that parents have come to expect of
them.
Interview Question 2: In your view, do you think there is a need for principals to
have knowledge of areas of law that affect their principalship? Why?
All the respondents agreed that there was a need for principals to have knowledge
of areas of law that affected their principalship, with five respondents indicating
that some broad knowledge of legal issues would be beneficial. The other
respondent (R2) felt that an awareness of legal issues that might arise in schools
would suffice.
The respondents gave varying reasons for principals to have knowledge of areas of
law affecting their principalship. They were as follows:
a.
Principals are given more autonomy, thus they can no longer rely on MOE
to deal with all contractual and financial matters (R5).
b.
Principals need to be proactive to protect teachers and themselves from

liability (R1, R4).
90
In earlier chapters, we made reference to the recent English case of Phelps v. London Borough of
Hillingdon, Anderton (2000) (Phelps) which saw the courts recognising liability for teachers or
educational psychologists who are entrusted with diagnosing, assessing and treating students with
special needs.
222
c.
Principals need to know their rights and obligations, especially in a culture

where parents are more inclined to threaten legal suits (R2, R6).
d.
Knowledge of school law can help principals to pre-empt issues and know
the correct courses of action when incidents do occur (R2, R4, R6).
e.
Some legal issues faced by the schools are common sense issues but
unfortunately, not everyone has common sense. As such, principals must
be educated on these issues (R3).
Interview Question 3: In your view, are there any major areas of concern relating
to school law that you think are likely to emerge in Singapore? If so, what are
they?
All the respondents were of the view that there are major areas of concern
relating to school law that would likely emerge in Singapore.
The perceived areas of concern were:

Relationship with parents. Three of the respondents (R2, R5, R6) said that more
and more parents expect a high standard of professionalism among educators.
They would not hesitate to challenge decisions made by the principal or to use the
law to push their case. This was especially so when parents thought that their
child had been unfairly treated (for example, a decision to expel or suspend a
student), or had been hurt by a teacher or by another child.
Relationship with external vendors. One respondent (R5) said that this would be
an emerging area of law because of the governments call for innovation and
entrepreneurship. Schools would have to negotiate deals with the private sector
and vice versa without infringing on civil service norms and rules.
223
Intellectual property rights. Two of the respondents (R4, R5) saw intellectual
property rights emerging as teachers and students got involved in inventions such
as board games, movie videos and music CDs. It would not just be copyright issues
but would extend to trade marks and patents.
Safety of children. Three of the respondents (R1, R2, R6) regarded the safety of
children as an emerging issue. They said that parents would challenge
inappropriate corporal punishment and question the school if their children were
hurt for whatever reasons. Teachers could also be accused of verbally abusing
their students by shouting at them.
Related to safety is the issue of Boy-girl-relationship (BGR). One respondent

(R3) was of the view that since teachers act in loco parentis, the school has a duty
to advise and counsel students who are involved in BGR if the school is aware of
such incidents. This is because parents would blame the school for not taking
appropriate actions should anything untoward happen to their children because of
BGR.
Internet usage and the issue of pornography. One respondent (R3) felt that with
the advance of the internet, students now had easy access to pornography or
undesirable websites. He was of the view that schools have a duty to monitor
internet usage on school computers91.
91
None of the respondents expressed any concern over possible misconduct by teachers in this area.
Presumably, the number of teachers who indulge in such activities will be small but nevertheless,
principals should remind teachers of the exemplary behaviour expected of them and the
consequences of misconduct under the Principals Handbook.
224
Misdiagnosis. Interestingly, one respondent (R1) mentioned the misdiagnosis of

learning difficulties as a possible area that might meet with legal challenge. As
mentioned earlier, there is a significant English case (see Phelps in Chapter Five
on page 141) that recognises the misdiagnosis of learning disability as a valid
claim.
Interview Question 5: In your view, are parents and students more knowledgeable
about their legal rights and more vocal in expressing them now? If so, how does it
impact on your leadership in the school?
All the respondents said that parents and students are more knowledgeable and
vocal in expressing their legal rights. However, one respondent (R3) said that this
trend is not so evident in students. Three respondents (R1, R2, R5) felt that
principals no longer commanded the authority they used to. R4 commented,
Parents are more likely to challenge the schoolprincipals need accountability
and legality. All the respondents said that to a certain extent, this trend had
impacted their leadership in the school.
To R1 and R5, principals were now seen as servant leaders and partners with
parents. One might ask how this fits in with the need for principals to have legal
literacy. As mentioned in Chapter One, education can now be seen to be more of a
form of service, and schools will need to be more conscious of and responsive to
the clients needs and expectations (in this instance, the parents and students
needs). This may lead to a demand for a higher level of professionalism, and
professionalism will demand that principals have knowledge of specialised areas
(including the area of law) that school administration may encounter.
225
R4 and R6 agreed that principals had to be mindful of accountability and legality.

This is because schools are seen as individuals rather than as part of the
government machinery. Therefore, as correctly pointed out by R3, principals have
to be ahead of parents in terms of legal knowledge and be more cautious in
handling matters. One way to deal with accountability, in the views of R1, R2, R4,
and R5, is for principals to explain and rationalise decisions to parents and
students to make them understand why certain things are done. R2 gave an
example of a case where a principal refused to grant permission for a student to
travel overseas during term time to participate in a competition. The students
parents appealed to the principal to reconsider but he refused. They then
appealed to MOE, but MOE decided not to interfere with the principals decision.
Next, they appealed to their Member of Parliament, who did not reply, and as a
last resort, they appealed to the Minister of Education. The Minister advised the
principal to agree to the parents request. This example supports the view that
parents are distinctly unwilling to take No for an answer and to pursue whatever
means they see fit to get their way. In the words of R1, there must be a change
in my style of leadership and taking (sic) parents as our partners.
Interview Question 6: In what ways do you find the establishment of the legal
department in the Ministry of Education useful to you in the performance of
your job as a principal?
All the respondents found it extremely useful to have a legal department in
the MOE, as they could now have easier and quicker access to legal advice
whenever they faced legal difficulties. R3 (retired principal) recalled the red
tape he used to go through in the past in order to obtain advice from the
226
Attorney Generals chambers. With the setting up of a legal department in the

MOE, R3 said he would expect the procedures to be simpler.
Two questions remain: first, the frequency of contact the principals have with
the legal department since its inception, and, second, the familiarity of the
principals with the procedures and protocols when seeking legal advice. This
may provide the basis of a separate study.
Interview Question 9: What is your view on shared responsibilities, i.e. is it

necessary for teachers and HODs to have knowledge of school law? Why?
All the respondents agreed that teachers and HODs should have knowledge of
areas of law affecting school administration. R6 qualified his response by saying
that teachers should be given only a little knowledge of school law, because the
more they know, the more they will be frightened into doing less for their
students for fear of legal suits. R4 (one of the ex-superintendents) on the other
hand felt that teachers should be taught school law at pre-service stage, because
if an accident were to happen due to ignorance, it would not be a defence in law
to say we do not want to frighten them into doing nothing.
The respondents gave various reasons for their answers and they can be
summarised as follows:
a.
The organisation is such that when the principal is away, the VicePrincipals and the HODs have to run the school (R2).
227
b.
HODs are the first point of contact when incidents and disputes occur.
They need to know what stance to take and what the parents rights are
(R5).
c.
Knowledge of certain areas of law will help teachers and administrators

know what is or is not acceptable behaviour. This will protect them from
investigation should anything untoward happen (R4).
d.
Principals and teachers should be proactive rather than reactive where

issues that have legal implications are concerned (R4, R5).
e.
The whole staff should have knowledge of certain areas of law, as they
deal with students on a daily basis. The more they know, the more they
will care for their students. They also need to know the legal implications
of a lack of a system or structure to ensure that the school is a safe and
secure place for the children. An understanding of these implications will
help staff to understand why supervision duties are in place and to help
them to deal with difficult situations (R1, R6).
f.
Although accountability ultimately lies with the principal, teachers act in

loco parentis and thus must know the law in this regard (R3, R6).
Interview Question 10: Many teachers and principals are of the view that schools
should be given some form of help in avoiding legal trouble. In your view, what
forms of help should be given?
All the respondents mentioned education. Education here can take the form of
workshops, seminars, talks, pre-service and in-service training and issuing
circulars. One respondent (R3) said that such workshops and seminars should be
conducted periodically, as educators need to be constantly reminded of the
important areas of law impacting schools. Three of the respondents (R1, R4, R5)
228
suggested the use of case studies (i.e. real cases) on various areas of law to aid
understanding.
R1, R2, R6 suggested setting up a legal helpdesk. R1 and R6 were the

respondents who were not aware of the establishment of the legal department in
MOE. R2 was suggesting a system where principals can ring up the legal
department directly rather than having to go through their superintendents, which
was the current protocol.
5.3.8 Interview Question 11: If you were to attend a workshop on school law,
what are the topics you would like to see covered?
The topics the respondents would like to see covered in a workshop were:
a.
Contract law
b.
Family law
c.
Law relating to children juvenile law, rights of the child
d.
Offences and practices that can be seen or interpreted as criminal offences
e.
Strategies that would prevent the school, principal or teachers from being
sued
f.
Safety issues (e.g. corporal punishment, negligence)
g.
Copyright law
h.
Two of the respondents (R4, R6) said, All the issues mentioned in the
interview.
This list of topics covers most of the issues that the principals mentioned in the
questionnaire and interviews. While all the topics are relevant to school
administration, the most important arguably is item (e), which will lead to
229
preventive legal risk management practices. By implementing school policies that

prevent and manage legal risks, principals would invariably examine all the other
topics, although different aspects of the law would receive different degree of
emphasis.
Two topics that were not mentioned were confidentiality and legislation governing
the education service. As schools are the main keepers of student records, many
interested groups and agencies will look to them for information relating to
students. Principals should therefore be aware of when they can or cannot
release such information so that they do not breach the common law of
confidentiality. As for legislation, principals should be reminded of the rules and
regulations that govern the running schools, most of which are set out in the
Principals Handbook. Principals should also be familiar with the legal
implications and disciplinary proceedings resulting from the breach such rules.
Conclusion
The findings from the pilot study suggest that the development of legal issues
affecting schools in Singapore is a growing concern for the administration and
management of Singapore schools, although more research may need to be
conducted to confirm this. Principals in this study not only found themselves
dealing with more and more specialist concerns, such as financial, contractual and
family matters, but they also found that a higher level of accountability was being
demanded of them. This could be due partly to societys changing expectations
and partly to the MOEs move towards granting greater autonomy (decision-making
powers) and responsibility to the principals. From this pilot study, it is observed
that regardless of years of experience as a principal, all the respondents had
230
brushes with areas of law that affect school administration. Whether it was R1
(the youngest principal) or R3 (the retired principal), the general consensus was
that the introduction of Schools and the Law to school administrators was a very
welcome and important move. The following comment from R4 sums up this view:
Decisions are coming closer to the ground. Schools are to be more
proactive in decision-making. The school principal may go beyond
boundaries. More risk taking will mean that principals may fall foul of the
law. The Instruction Manual may not handle every issue that may arise in
school.
Indeed, although all public officers are expected to refer to the governments
Instruction Manual whenever they need guidance, the Manual may not have the
solution to every issue that arises in schools. For employees of aided schools, the
need for legal literacy is even greater, as they are not government officers and
the Instruction Manuals have no bearing on them92. The principals in this study
(especially R1, who was heading an aided school) were therefore eager to gain
professional knowledge of areas of law that affected them, so that they could
better carry out legal management in the school. In fact, all the principals felt
that legal management was a shared responsibility, in that all the staff should
have knowledge of school law. However, given the different levels of
responsibility in a school, the degree of knowledge of law acquired by the staff
would necessarily differ, with teachers having at least a basic knowledge of legal
concepts, such as the in loco parentis principle, and principals having sufficient
knowledge of areas of law that affect their professional responsibilities.
92
For this reason, government-aided and independent schools do not have access to MOEs legal
department. They have to rely on their own pool of private lawyers for advice.
231
Opponents of the argument that principals and teachers do need to have legal
literacy will claim that the law does not play an active role in Singapores
education system, as there is no significant growth in legislation affecting
education, nor have there been many school-related cases that have reached the
Singapore courts. However, a lack of legislation and court cases does not mean
that schools do not or will not face law suits. In fact, in B381 of the Principals
Handbook, it is stated, Accidents in school science laboratories, technical
workshops, computer and home economics rooms have at times involved the
Government in legal proceedings besides resulting in serious injuries to pupils.
Informal discussions with key personnel in the Attorney Generals chambers,
MOEs legal department and the Singapore Teachers Union reveal that cases
involving schools do exist. Many of these cases are either heard in chambers,
which are not reported, or settled out of court by the Attorney Generals
Chambers or MOE. It is clear that Singapore should not wait for a marked increase
in court cases and legislation affecting education before it looks seriously at
schools and the law.
Literature in the field of Schools and the Law or Education and the Law in
other countries (discussed in Chapter Five) tells us that issues are creeping onto
the agenda that are very much issues in Singapore education. The common theme
of Safety in Schools emerged in several countries, and this theme covers issues
such as negligence in schools, sexual assaults by teachers and bullying by students.
These are similar issues that have surfaced in Singapore, and principals need to
know how to deal with them and respond to public reaction.
232
There may be a view that legal issues in Singapore schools will never grow to the
same extent as those other countries, because Singaporeans are apathetic and will
not fight their case. Judging from the forum pages of the local newspapers, this
can no longer be true. Singaporeans are now more prepared to express their
concerns openly and critically, and schooling issues certainly feature prominently
in these open forums. Rather than hide under the belief that legal issues
affecting Singapore schools will never have the same status as they have in other
countries, one should learn from these countries experiences and see how
knowledge of the law can converge with school administration to make schools
safer and more secure learning environments for our children. Prevention is
better than cure.
This pilot study was conducted with a small group of administrators and thus has
not necessarily captured a representative view of principals in government and
government-aided schools. Nor was it intended to do so. The intention at this
stage of the study was to gain some indication of what the prevailing discourse
regarding legal issues might be, and then to use that as a basis for thinking about
the development of the study. Similarly, there were just a few case studies
included to gauge the principals knowledge of common law decisions and
legislative provisions. The findings showed that all members of the small group
shared a perception that the law was assuming an increasingly significant role in
schools. Lets suppose their views are shared by many other administrators: if
legal issues are expanding in schools, then, are Singapore principals sufficiently
prepared to cope with such issues? What are the best strategies for coping with
legal issues and responsibilities?
233
The evidence in this study has identified several legal issues that principals are
concerned and involved with in schools, and further research might be carried out
to determine the actual extent of involvement of principals with the law, and their
degree of preparedness to deal with them. With the findings, recommendations can
then be made for principals and policy makers to improve the administration and
management of legal matters in schools. By improving strategies to cope with legal
issues and responsibilities, legal risks can be minimised, and there is also the
possibility that Singapore, with a proactive approach to risk management, may be
able to keep the courts relatively free of school-related cases.
The use of interviews in the pilot study enabled the researcher to see the benefit of
drawing on the lived experiences of the respondents, and, while the use of
questionnaire may have provided some considerable economy of scale, the
interview approach yielded rich data that enabled the researcher to gain in-depth
insights into the interviewees points of view. However, the experiences of
conducting the interviews reinforced the belief that the right conditions must be
established, and that the interviewer has to exercise great patience, giving the
interviewee time to co-establish rapport and to set his or her comments in context.
The use of a questionnaire to obtain background information about the

respondents was appropriate since it was an efficient way of getting to know the
respondents, and it freed up more time for the interviews. The same technique
was thus utilised prior to the in-depth interviews.
In the following chapter, data from the in-depth interviews with ten school
principals is presented and analysed.
234
CHAPTER SEVEN
IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS WITH SCHOOL LEADERS AND THE RESULTS
7.1
Introduction93
This chapter deals with the third Phase of the research, which was the in-depth
interviewing of ten principals, to discuss the emerging legal issues internationally
and the implications for them as school leaders in Singapore. Before going into the
details of the interviews, it is useful to summarise the key items of legislation that
form the historical basis of education in Singapore.
Singapore is a small island in a strategic location, but it has no natural resources.

In order to survive, Singapore needs foreign capital, technology and markets, and
brainpower to work within the economic system, and it needs the capacity to
access the most lucrative global markets. Education is a crucial concern for
Singapores leaders in the running of the country because, alongside innovation,
education is seen as a significant economy driver. Policies are initiated to nurture
students in order that the nation has future leaders to meet the challenges of an
increasingly service- and knowledge-based economy. What are the laws, then,
that govern the smooth running of education in Singapore?
The Education Act (Cap. 51) was first enacted in 1957. At that time, the ruling
party, the Peoples Action Party, had just come to power in a united front with
the communists to fight British colonialism. Thus, a review of the Education Act
(Cap. 87, 1957) shows very strict licensing regulations, presumably with the
intention of controlling the use of classrooms for communist propaganda. The
Education Act (Cap. 87, 1957) governs the registers of schools, managers and
93
Some of the material used in this section is part of a chapter submitted for publication in an
edited book entitled: "Teacher Rights: International Perspectives".
235
teachers, and sets out conditions for teacher registration. Regulations, in the form
of subsidiary legislation, are made under the Education Act (Cap. 87, 1957) and
they regulate issues such as school management, school staff, qualification of
teachers, school premises and equipment, playgrounds, lavatories, school health,
workshops, laboratories, discipline, money, and school accounts and syllabi.
School regulations also prohibit political propaganda in schools and the control of
textbooks by any particular group beyond the Ministry of Education. These
regulations were enacted in 1958 for political reasons and, therefore, many
lawyers are of the view that they no longer represent the present political and
education climate, and should be significantly amended.
The most relevant piece of legislation is the Education (Grant-In-Aid) Regulations,

Education Act (Cap. 87, [1957]) which is subsidiary legislation of the Education
Act. As mentioned above, this piece of legislation enables the government to
render financial aid to non-government registered schools that apply for aid where
the conditions stated in the regulations are satisfied. The conditions regulate,
inter alia, admission policies, curriculum, examinations, school buildings and
facilities, and school terms and holidays. To ensure consistency and a good
standard of teaching across the nation, the Ministry of Education feels the need to
exercise control over teachers. Hence, before these aided schools employ
prospective teachers, they are required to obtain the Ministry of Educations
approval. This obviously gives considerable control of education to the
government, and there is little latitude, even for schools with strong historical ties
to particular religious affiliations.
236
The other significant pieces of subsidiary legislation that have an impact on

teachers in Singapore are the Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations
and the Public Service Commission (Delegation of Disciplinary Functions)
Directions, under the Articles 110 and 116 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Singapore (1965), and the Education Service Incentive Payment (Connect Plan)
Regulations, under the Education Service Incentive Payment Act (Cap. 87B, 2002).
As the titles of the legislation suggest, these regulate the conduct of teachers and
provide the legal mechanism for monetary reward to motivate teachers to
perform well.
Apart from having a basic knowledge of legislation referred to above, do principals

have any legal literacy or understanding of areas of law that impact their job,
such as the law of negligence, special needs and educational malpractice that
were discussed in Chapter Five? To answer this question and to obtain an
indication of school leaders perspective and understanding of the role of legal
issues in education, semi-structured interviews were used.
7.2
The Participants and Conduct of Research
The pilot study in the preceding chapter enabled the researcher to gain a
preliminary insight into school leaders perspective on the research problem. With
minor amendments to the interview questions, in-depth interviews were
conducted with ten principals to elicit lived experiences and gain a richer picture
of the issues in question. In chapter two, it was explained that this research is
exploratory, because it addresses issues and problems that are relatively unknown
in Singapore. The method of selecting participants was, therefore, not guided by
the need for validity, reliability and generalisability of the data received. Rather,
237
an opportunistic approach was taken, in that principals who took part in the law
workshops conducted by the researcher were asked to participate in the
interview. Eight principals agreed to participate while another two principals
consented to the interview after an email request sent by the researcher. The
advantage of this opportunistic approach was that it enabled the researcher to
know her audience (Berg, 2007, p. 131)(italics mine) right from the start of the
interview and facilitated the building of rapport between the researcher and the
participants. As noted by Janesick (1994) this is an important component of the
research, as once trust and rapport was gained at the beginning of the study, the
researcher was better able to capture the participants genuinely held point of
view. The following Table 7.1 provides the profile of the participating school
leaders.
238
TABLE 7.1 Profile of Participating School Leaders

(Questions 1 to 7 of the Questionnaire)
Participant
Sex
Length of
time in
education
Classroom
Experience
profession
Administration
Experience
(HOD or
Administration
Experience
(Vice Principal)
Administration
Experience
(Principal)
MOE
Experience
Type of
School
as principal
Attended
in service
workshop
on legal
issues
Govt (primary)
Govt-aided
(secondary)
Yes, 1 day
Yes, 1 day
Yes, 1 day
Yes,
day
senior teacher)
Female
Over 16 yrs
11 to 15 yrs
Over 6 yrs
Up to 2 yrs
3 to 5 yrs
Nil
Male
11 to 15 yrs
Over 6 yrs
Nil
3 to 5 yrs
6 to 10 yrs
Female
Over 16 yrs
11 to 15
years
6 to 10 yrs
Up to 2 yrs
Up to 2 yrs
Up to 2 yrs
Up to 2 yrs
Male
Over 16 yrs
11 to 15 yrs
3 to 5 yrs
3 to 5 yrs
Over 11 yrs
Nil
Govt (primary)
Govt/govt-aided
(secondary)
Male
Over 16 yrs
6 to 10 yrs
3 to 5 yrs
3 to 5 yrs
3 to 5 yrs
Up to 2 yrs
Govt (secondary)
Yes,
day
Female
Over 16 yrs
6 to 10 yrs
3 to 5 yrs
Up to 2 yrs
6 to 10 yrs
3 to 5 yrs
Govt (secondary)
Yes, 1 day
Male
Over 16 yrs
3 to 5 yrs
Up to 2 yrs
Up to 2 yrs
Over 11 yrs
Nil
Govt-aided
(primary/secondary)
Yes,
day
Male
Over 16 yrs
11 to 15 yrs
Over 6 yrs
Up to 2 yrs
Up to 2 yrs
Up to 2 yrs
Govt (primary)
No
Female
Over 16 yrs
Over 16 yrs
3 to 5 yrs
Up to 2 yrs
3 to 5 yrs
Nil
Male
Over 16 yrs
6 to 10 yrs
Up to 2 yrs
Up to 2 yrs
6 to 10 yrs
Up to 2 yrs
Govt (primary)
Govt-aided
(secondary/Junior
College)
10
Yes, 2
days
Yes,
day
239
The interviews were between 60 to 90 minutes in length and were tape-recorded.

The meetings were scheduled with each participant in their respective schools,
except for Participant 5, who was seconded to the Ministry of Education at the time
of the research. The interview with Participant 5 took place in the canteen of the
Ministry of Education. At the meetings, a short questionnaire was administered prior
to the interviews to obtain the profile of the participants and some preliminary views
of education and the law. All interviews were completed over a two-month period.
7.3
The Questionnaire and Interview Questions
The categories of questions utilised at this stage are aptly described by Berg, 2007,
as essential questions, extra questions, throw-away questions, and probing questions.
Essential questions, as the term suggests, are questions that are central to the
focus of the study. Extra questions are included to test the reliability of responses
to the essential questions. Throw-away questions are those that are included in
the questionnaire to develop rapport between the researcher and the participants,
and if necessary, to use to draw out complete stories from the respondents. Finally,
probing questions are used throughout the interview to elicit additional
information and more complete stories from the participants (Berg, 2007, pp. 75-76).
Essential questions were formulated by re-phrasing the interview questions in the

pilot study to capture the essence of the research, that is, how the emerging legal
issues internationally can have an impact on, or implications for, school leaders.
Questions 7 and 8 of the pilot study (see appendix 2B) were therefore removed, as
the purpose of the study was not to ascertain the legal knowledge held by principals.
Extra questions, for example, Education law is of emerging relevance to schools
in Singapore Agree/Disagree were placed in the questionnaire to test the
reliability of the essential questions of the interview. Throw-away questions
240
were placed in the questionnaire to gather personal data of the participants and to
elicit little anecdotes that may have been invaluable in analysing the data. The
interview questions were worded to motivate the participants to communicate
clearly (his) attitudes and opinions (Denzin, 1970, p.129, parentheses mine).
Probing questions were also used throughout the interview to draw responses that
fitted the broad contents of the investigation. For example, phrases like, In your
view, Do you think, How has, if so, in what way were used to elicit
complete and honest stories from the participants. Overall, the questions were
designed to make the participants feel at ease in discussing the emerging trend of
education and the law, and that they were in fact working with the researcher to
explore this whole area.
A semi-structured interview format was applied. Although predetermined questions

were asked, the advice of Berg (2007, p.95) was noted to allow the researcher
freedom to digress and to probe far beyond the answers to their prepared
standardized questions. It can be seen in the profile of the participants that the
minimum period of experience in the education profession is 15 years. The use of
semi-structured questions thus allowed the researcher to adjust the language during
the interview process in order to draw out the experiences of participants and enrich
the delivery of their perspectives.
7.4
Interview Transcripts and the Analytical Procedures
The analysis of the interview data was both interesting and difficult. It was
interesting because of stories or anecdotes told. It was difficult because it involved
the transcribing and organising of a large amount of complex data. Although
qualitative software packages such as Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis
Software (CAQDAS) and Non-numerical Unstructured Data Indexing Searching and
241
Theorizing (NUD*IST), among others, were available, the researcher preferred hand
analysis (Creswell, 2005, p. 234) and was successfully able to manage the data
extent and complexity in this way.
Morse (1994) commented that the process of data analysis has been fairly poorly
described, but Dey (1993) notes that qualitative analysis requires the analyst to
create or adapt concepts relevant to the data rather than to apply a set of preestablished rules (p. 58). Berg (2007) argues that the process of data analysis is
also the most creative (p. 133), and thus impossible to describe a general or
universal set procedure. In fact, Creswell (2005, p. 232) describes this process as an
eclectic one and the final outcome unique for each inquirer (Patton, 2002, p.
432).
So, to begin the analysis, the researcher transcribed all the interviews personally into
written text. In doing so, the researcher was able to get an initial sense of the issues
arising from the data. It also provided, as Patton (2002) correctly pointed out, the
opportunity to get immersed in the data which generated emergent insights (p.
441). Then, to ensure that the qualitative data analysis in the research was rigorous,
a close reading of the data was carried out over several days.
7.5
Close Reading of the Data
As stated by Merriam (1998, p.7), the data of qualitative research is mediated

through a human instrument, since the researcher is the primary instrument for
data collection and analysis. This being the case, Schmidt (2000) rightly commented
that it is unavoidable to conduct an exact and repeated reading of individual
interview transcripts (p. 254) to prevent the researcher from impulsively relating
242
text passages to the researchers questions and, in the process, overlooking passages
that may have connection to the research questions.
However, a close reading of the whole data in a relatively unmediated way, draws
the researchers attention to the participants answers to questions 9, 13, 14 and 15
of the Questionnaire (see Appendix 3A), which gives an overall view of the
participants perspective on the emerging relevance of legal issues in the education
sector. These questions are also extra questions which may be used later to check
the reliability of responses of the interview questions. Table 7.2 below summarises
the participants response to the said questions. From the table, there is consensus
that the participants have seen an increase in the influence of law in school policies
and that dealing with legal matters caused stress, and, in this respect, more so than
in previous years.
TABLE 7.2
Response to Questions 9, 13, 14 and 15 of the Questionnaire
Participant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Saw
increase in
influence of
law in
school
policies
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Legal
matters
caused
more
stress
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Legal
matters
more
stressful
than
previous
years
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Legal matters
caused stress
more than
other
administration
matters
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Education
law of
emerging
relevance
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Awareness of
Singapores
position
regarding the
CRC
Yes
Yes
No
Vaguely
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
During the close reading of the data, notes were made of topics that occurred and
related broadly to the context of the research questions. In the following pages, the
243
participants responses to the interview questions in Appendix 3B are presented and

analysed. The challenge to the researcher is in identifying patterns and relationships
in the data and then weaving the information into a coherent narrative, that is,
presenting the analysis in a cogent manner, which shows an overall pattern for each
of the research questions. To do this, the research adopts the style of using rich
thick descriptions (Merriam, 2002, p. 15; Patton, 2002) and examining themes that
emerge during the data analysis (Creswell, 2005).
7.6
Research Question 1:
What roles do globalisation and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child (1989) (CRC) play in the area of rights and education in Singapore?
This question deals with two aspects. First, whether globalisation has any impact on
school leaders in the administration of their schools; and, second, what educators
know about the CRC. The aspect on globalisation will be looked at first.
In Chapter Three, the effect of globalisation on rights and education in Singapore

generally was discussed. While no specific question was asked about globalisation
during the interview, the researcher was able to draw out the theme Changing
World from the responses to some of the interview questions.
7.6.1 Globalisation Theme: Changing World

Four points of view about globalisation emerged from the data. First, it was observed
that parents and students are more knowledgeable and vocal in expressing their
concerns and rights, and globalisation is attributed as an important factor. Second,
because parents and students are more knowledgeable and vocal, there needs to be
a change in the style of leadership. Third, as society opens up, there will be an
244
increase in cases involving sexual misconduct between students and students, or

between teachers and students. Finally, globalisation will affect the policy making
process both at the Ministry of Education level and the school level.
A table (Table 7.3) is used to present statements made by the participants pertaining
to the four points of view above. Where identical statements are made, they have
not been included. The P in the table refers to Participants. All the statements
reproduced in this chapter are verbatim and the use of Singlish such as lah and
aiyah was retained in order to maintain the texture and authenticity of the
responses.
TABLE 7.3
Globalisation Theme: Changing World
The Four Points of View
Parents and students are
P
1
Examples of Statements About the Changing World

They seem to make a reference to whats in the
more knowledgeable and
mediaThe world is changing. You know weve always
vocal
been told how its going to be different, you have to equip

your child with this, with that, you have to be providing
your child with the best opportunity. So parents are
reacting, or parents are concerned lah, naturally, and
therefore they voice it more often. So, in the past if we
hear of our child not really learning very much because
the teacher was so called lousy, we probably, aiyah, you
know and then we try to support our child in different
ways. We are not so quick to go to the principal to say
this, but now its so easy, you get a phone call, you get a
letter.
2
Things have changed and they are changing quite rapidly.

Parents are a lot more knowledgeable about their rights
and they are also a lot more protective of their children.
The other aspect is mass media influence of the mass

media. And also a lot of examples from oversea (sic).
Parents travel a lot. They get to know all about this.
Singaporeans travel tremendously a lot these days.
Knowledge, knowing about the legal dimension.
245
10
These are people who have got really permeable

communication flows from themselves as young as they
can remember, not just to their friends but to authorities,
to people in other countries. You know a young person in
RJC can write to a Minister in Singapore, can write to Kofi
Annan, I mean, that kind of permeability that was not
available one generation, not even one generation, 10
years ago, so this is the group of people who have grown
up with this kind of a background, environment, and
therefore they feel necessary to communicate things, to
find channels and platforms to surface things that are a
concern to them.
Leadership
I think we must reflect and review our practices and see

whether some of these are outdated. They may have been
fine. I always hear people say and II say this sometimes
myself. In the old days, when I was a kid this was done,
but things are different, you know, the environment is not
the same, the context has changed, laws have changed. So
how can we keep citing the past and how it used to be and
therefore use that to justify our actions? I think that is not
right.
People have become more knowledgeable through so

many, so many media TV, newspapers, radio, computers,
internet, then also the network and email among each
other, its so convenient now. In the past, it was a bit of a
hassle. Apart from the telephone, you dont really get the
opportunity to be able to communicate very fast, now you
canStudents are not stupid anymore. You cannot treat
them as ignorant and anonymous and handle them like
they are.
You cannot run the school, you know, without getting

feedback from them, without even sensing what they want
and what they dont want, then you will have a lot of
problems.
Sexual Misconduct
With the internet, with growing pornography, you know,

sexual values, norms may change or shift and erI have
dealt with some cases. I think increasingly, we must be
more careful.
Cases involving sexual assault, molestation and all

thissome of these things, it may happen because now we
246
have globalisation, our IT is so advanced, you know. So, I

will think that nowadays the students are more open, and
they may get into trouble like this, i.e. students and
students, and also possibility of teacher and students.
Policy making
I think people are more knowledgeable now. There are a

lot of policies that come down from the Ministry. In the
past, policies were less disseminated among the school,
among the staff, now its more, so it becomes a duty for
us to make sure that we keep in touch.
Trying to grow Singapores profile internationally On

paper, it looked like we have problem. I actually read the
entire Act, but we realise we had problems like that there
was no compulsory education, so there were possible
loopholes that other nations can use to poke at
Singapore.
7.6.2 Globalisation Summary of Findings

The participants seem to be in consensus that Singapore society is changing in that
there is an increase in awareness, if not knowledge, about issues - including legal
issues - that affect childrens education. This awareness translates into a need for
school leaders to have more knowledge about the legal dimension of running a
school. There is even a suggestion that parents will come to expect professionalism
in terms of delivery of curriculum. The very notion of educational negligence or
educational malpractice as discussed in Chapter Five94 is brought to the fore.
P1: In the past if we hear of our child not really learning very much because the
teacher was so called lousy, we probably, aiyah, you know and then we try to
support our child in different ways.
One participant categorically said,

P4: At least teachers are viewed as professionals nowIn the past, it was not so,
teacher is what? You are ONLY a teacher.
And another participant commented,
94
See Chapter Five, page 124
247
P8: Increasingly we have parents that are better educated and I think my guess
is that they will understand and know their legal rights better, especially where
it comes to how we teach the childit may come to that where the parents get
agitated about not looking into special needs and poor teaching.
As a consequence of societal change, school leaders are forced to rethink the way
they run the school. Parents and students are increasingly treated as consumers,
where previous practices have to be revealed and feedback from the stakeholders is
considered necessary and valuable. The unanimous view of the participants in this
regard is summed up in the words of P5:
P5: You cannot run the school, you know, without getting feedback from them,
without even sensing what they want and what they dont want, then you will
have a lot of problemssometimes good ideas can come from them, you
knowand I think the climate and the culture of the school and the class will be
good.
Being educated in the old system, and some having been school leaders for several
years, the participants noticed a fundamental shift in the area of free speech in
schools. There was a recognition that school leadership must shift from an
authoritarian to a consultative style. Gone are the days where students listen
passively in class and simply follow step-by-step instructions. P4 commented that
those who do not accept this fundamental shift will likely see freedom of speech as a
threat to their position and authority:
P4: There is a potential loss of authority. There is a potential loss of control.
The next point of view concerning globalisation that emerged from the interviews
was that the permeability of communications, by various means, will lead to an
increase of incidents involving sexual misconduct by students and teachers. It will
248
not be surprising that the experience of P7, when he worked in Australia several
years ago, is actually happening in Singapore:
P7: In fact when I was in Australia, this is in Lismore. Lismore is upnorth of
Sydney, still in NSW. This an A level student, teacher fall in love with him.
Hes only 17-18 only. Finally they got married. Acceptable? And then the teacher
teaching in school, the boy is a student in the school, but not teaching the same
class lah. I dont know how they manage the situation. I find it really weird. I
find it really weird.
Finally, globalisation affects policy decisions. Having worked in the policy wing of the
Ministry of Education, P6 gave some insight into the influence of international
policies on education policies in Singapore. At the school level, P8 recounted to the
researcher a policy that the school adopted which was scrutinised by parents with a
fine-tooth comb. It concerned a dismissal policy on a wet day and certain ambiguity
was pointed out by the parents. P8 concluded from the incident that parents are
indeed more knowledgeable and vocal, unlike in the past, and even simple acts like
drafting a letter, let alone policy-making, must be carefully executed:
P8: So they read, they read things given out to them, and letters that we give
out to parents, I read with extra care because sometimes you dont know how
and when it comes back to you.
7.6.3 CRC
The participants were asked specifically what they knew about the CRC. Table 7.2
above showed that of the ten participants, only four had knowledge of it, while one
knew only vaguely. The other five participants had no knowledge of the CRC at all.
The CRC has 54 articles but 4 general principles can be drawn from them. They are:
1. No discrimination of children based on, inter alia, race, colour, sex,
language, religion, and disability.
249
2. To give children a right to survival and development in all aspects of their

lives, including physical, emotional, psychological, cognitive, social and
cultural dimension.
3. The best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in all decisions
and actions affecting the child.
4. Children should be allowed to express their opinions, especially in matters
concerning themselves.
Unlike the issue of globalisation, the first general principle of the CRC on
discrimination was not mentioned throughout the interviews. This can be attributed
to the fact that there is no anti-discrimination legislation in Singapore. Although the
question of discrimination per se was not referred to, the issue of special needs was
discussed during the interviews. It was mentioned in Chapter Three that Singapore
adopts an inclusive policy when it comes to special needs. One participant, P9,
strongly felt that more needed to be done for special needs children in terms of
placement and testing. However, there was no inference of society discriminating
against them. This is what P9 said:
P9: I would like them, if they are assessed for them to be transferred to a
special school as soon as possible, but from my experience, all these years in a
primary school, it takes a long time, a very long time. I have children who have
been assessed and five years down the road, they are still with me.
The other participants, on the other hand, were satisfied with the progress the
government is making in building more special needs schools and improving training.
For example:
P3: I think there is very positive direction, not only the Ministry but the nation
at large, is going forward I think as a nation at large, we probably have got to
prioritiseovernight we just cant have everyone ready and skilled you see, but
its definitely a very encouraging sign because support is already rolling out.
250
Plans have already been done for recruitment and umtraining and all that
stuff.
P7: But now the government is building more special needs schools. If in the
law, then they are supposed to go to these schools. If not, they cannot demand.
When asked why he thought parents in Singapore will not take any issue against
schools or the government for not providing sufficient special needs facilities, P4
went so far as to say this:
P4: I think it is our Asian culture. We accept authority, we accept that the
government will take care of it, especially our government which is viewed to be
very caring and people centred. So if they have not been able to provide, thats
because they have not been able to yet. So, we wait lah.
As regards the second general principle of the CRC, although only half of the
participants knew about the CRC, all them were in agreement that the safety of the
children in their schools is paramount. While physical safety is foremost in their
minds, three participants (P1, P3 and P7) alluded to the overall development of the
children. For example, P3 said:
P3: Care and safety. Care in all sense of the word holistically lah, physically,
psychologically, emotionally, socially and all that stuff.
Interestingly, P3 was one of the participants who had no knowledge of the CRC.
The third general principle referred to making decisions affecting children by giving
primary consideration to the childrens best interests. The participants who referred
to this aspect in their administration of the school had this to say:
P5: One of the guiding principles which we have crafted is students come
first, you see. That is the first of the guiding principle.
P7: The best interest of the child is the most important, whatever we do, no one
can fault you on that.
251
P9: My student must come first, alright, and then my teachers, my staff. We
must ensure things like safety, their safety (secure), their rights are looked into.
P10: A principal is to take the best interest of the students in line with your core
purpose. Dont need the CRC to know that.
Apart from P7, the other three participants, P5, P9 and P10 indicated that they had
no knowledge of the CRC.
The final general principle stipulates that children should be allowed to express their
opinions. All ten participants were of the view that freedom of expression in schools
is necessary, as it is one of the explicit desired outcomes of education. They felt
that the ability to express oneself is a life skill that should be developed and taught
from young. But while there was consensus amongst the participants on the need to
allow children to freely express themselves, five of the participants qualified that
view with an expectation of respect for authority and the community. These are
examples of what the participants said:
P7: Freedom must come with responsibility children must be aware that what
they say affects otherswhat you say must be constructive, not so much that its
anarchy or lead to destruction of society or communityfreedom with selfrespect and respect for others. Thats important.
P9: Basically, we will like our children to express themselves because actually it
is one of the outcomes of primary education, that children should think and
express themselves. BUT we will say that they must make sure that they do it in
a respectful way. That is important to us.
7.6.4 CRC Summary of Findings

Participants who were aware of the CRC mentioned a brochure that was prepared
and highlighted to principals during meetings with the Ministry of Education. But, as
pointed out by P6, most principals would have given a mere cursory glance at the
document and,
252
P6: It was like in passing, so people without background, I think will not
understand.
P7, another participant who was aware of the CRC said:

P7: There are booklets on the CRC but not enough. I think as part of training
teachers in training should be taught this, they should know the rights of every
child, legally speaking as such.
Whether or not the participants had knowledge of, or were aware of, the CRC, the
general principles in the Charter appear to have a role to play in at least
complementing or enhancing the school leaders philosophy in educating a child, but
arguably more should be done to bring it to the attention of educators.
7.7
What are the legal issues in other countries (particularly commonwealth

countries) such as England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA, arising
mainly from tort liability litigation, which have the potential to impact upon the
responsibilities of Singaporean educators?
In Chapter Five, an overview of the areas of law in education from England, Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, the USA and South Africa was set out. The areas include
student records, students with disabilities, bullying, compulsory education, student
injuries, corporal punishment, suspension and expulsion, child abuse, educational
malpractice and sexual misconduct. Most of these topics were explored during the
interviews, but this section will begin with the topics that were only briefly
mentioned.
253
It was noted in Chapter Three that Singapore does not have any general laws on
privacy95. As such, issues like students records are strictly regulated by government
policies. These policies are not accessible to the researcher, so when formulating the
interview questions, this topic was omitted, as it was felt that there was little scope
for discussion. Compulsory education and child abuse were referred to when
considering the participants knowledge about the CRC. It was noted at the
beginning of this chapter and in Chapter Three that Singapore society demands a
strong need for education and in practice virtually all children in the country attend
primary school96. Thus, apart from an acknowledgement from the participants there
is now compulsory education, it was felt that there was no need to explore this area
further.
The topic on child abuse is an important one and most of the participants recognised
that the CRC would encompass some principles on that. However, in Singapore, there
is no legal requirement for teachers to report suspected cases of child abuse. School
leaders and teachers are simply given general guidelines on reporting suspected child
abuse97. Nevertheless, two participants expressed their concern about this issue and
recognise the need for them to be proactive in protecting their students from abuse:
P4: I think we have a legal duty to protect a child against abuses.
P8: I think at the school level, I have to check that my pupils are... not all
homes are fine. So in school, I have to look out for children who are abused, and
inform the due authorities like MCYS.
Because of its importance, this topic is one that warrants separate, independent
study. The topic was not discussed in detail when exploring this particular research
question.
95
96
97
Chapter Three, page 52

Chaper Three, page 45
see Chapter Three, page 48
254
The interview question for Research Question 2 sought the participants views on the
trends in education law in other countries, other than student records, compulsory
education and child abuse, as to whether similar issues had arisen in Singapore and
the implications they had for the participants. Tables are used to present the
statements made by the participants, followed by a summary of the findings. The P
in each table refers to Participants.
7.7.1 Students with Disabilities

TABLE 7.4
Research Question 2: Students with Disabilities
P
Statements about Students with Disabilities
There is a louder voice on things like special needs.
I think increasingly, we are seeing that in Singapore as well.
I think there is very positive direction, not only the Ministry by the nation at large, is
going forward, thats why a lot of funding,training and attention is given to two
particular areas of needs at the moment, because there are so many unique kinds of
needs, I think as a nation at large, we probably have got to prioritise lah, based
onthe population who need those kind of support. I think at the moment, we are
going towards eras a priority first dyslexic support, as well as autistic
spectrumovernight, we just cant have everyone ready and skilled.
Suing? Not in Singapore. Perhaps in the States and in the UK. I think it is our Asian
culture. We accept authority, we accept that the government will take care of it,
especially our government which is viewed to be very caring and people centred. So if
they have not been able to provide, thats because they have not been able to yet.
So, we wait lah!
Now at the moment, most of the pupils with special needs, when we talk about
physical special needs, we have special schools and they are specially trained. There
are only a few of them in the mainstream school, some may have one, some may have
two, some even three. And because of the small number in the mainstream school,
the school can still handle it. In fact, they become almost like the spot light, every
student go and help them. So I dont think its a problem you see.
Special needs no legal action threatened. We have special needs but in terms of they
ask us and we are always willing to help. A girl with diabetes, type 1 who needs to
inject herself, so the mother came and asked whether the school could provide a
255
place for her to inject herself.

7
They cannot sue in the sense that for a start, there is special school to go to. Why
dont they? First of all, there is no law on inclusion here you knowthey cannot
demand.
I think no one gets sued for not looking into a special needs child, Ive not heard
anyone, though I think there is an increasing number of parents who feel that a child
with special needs should be in a mainstream school. That Ive come across. But none
have said that they will sue the school for not providing the special needs education.
I dont need parents to assert their rights for special needs children. As a principal, I
also want to assert but my voice is not heard (laughter). As a principal, we have
special needs children in our mainstream, and these children are actually very
difficult to handle because number 1, teachers, and including myself, they are not
actually trained to handle them, alright, how to teach them also, they are not
trained, you see, to teach them too. And er, some of these children actually come
with a lot of emotional needs.
I would like them, if they are assessed for them to be transferred to a special school
as soon as possible, but from my experience, all these years in a primary school, it
takes a long time, a very long time. I have children who have been assessed and five
years down the road, they are still with me.
10
I think most Singapore schools take care of special needs very well, whether its the
upper end or physical needs or the lower end. I think especially now in this season in
education where we are doing a lot more customising. I think we are taking care of it
much better than in the past.
I was in Whitney Young High School in the US, and I was surprised, I did know that
there was a lot of immersion of special needs students in the mainstream, but I didnt
realise that there was legislation to actually determine the numbers you take in even
and it does have an impact on your manpower and your area of focus.
7.7.2 Students with Disabilities Summary of Findings

Chapter Five showed legislation being enacted in several jurisdictions ensuring that
children with disabilities are not discriminatorily excluded from public schools, and
that equal opportunity and access are provided for them. Singapore does not have
similar legislation but only a policy of inclusive education whenever appropriate
and feasible, with special education schools being the main providers of education
256
for children with disabilities. The results of the interviews on this issue show a
general acceptance and satisfaction with the current position. Only P9 explicitly
expressed her dissatisfaction with the current position. However, interestingly, her
dissatisfaction translated into plain resignation. Her statement,
P9: I dont need parents to assert their rights for special needs children. As a
principal, I also want to assert but my voice is not heard.
actually ended with laughter. It conveys to the researcher an acceptance of the status
quo regarding students with disabilities and indirectly confirms the view of P4:
P4: So if they have not been able to provide, thats because they have not been
able to yet. So, we wait lah!
Although P4 felt that the provision of facilities and personnel for special needs
children was not a current concern, he went on to say that the issue will be an
emerging concern. This is the reason he gave:
P4: Increasingly there are more students with special needs that are in the
mainstream autistic, dyslexic cases and all that. There are more so now and
we have to handle that. And as a result of their handicap, they do get picked on
and get bullied. Some of the kids can be pretty mean. Ive got one case now of
this autistic child, the class tease him badly. I mean in Kuo Chuan also there
were 2 cases, used to create havoc, because one guy Samuel in sec one, all of a
sudden, he will just burst out and scream and it gets very disruptive and
everybody gets very cheesed off all because somebody whispers in his ear, we
want to hack into your computer AAHH! AAHH! We want to hack into your
computer AAHH! AAHH! So, after a while, it gets to be fun with the rest, but
it gets very annoying and disruptive.
The overall sense the researcher got from the interviews was that students with
disabilities were not a major concern for school leaders in terms of legal liability, but
they would see an increase in parents voicing their concerns about the special needs
their children have or requesting their children to be placed in a mainstream school:
257
P8: I think there is an increasing number of parents who feel that a child with
special needs should be in a mainstream school.
The results also show a limited understanding of the term students with
disabilities. The expression encompasses various special needs and is not limited to
providing medication, administering injections or to physical handicap (see
statements of P5 and P6 in Table 7.4). There is also a misconception that there are
sufficient and affordable facilities provided for students with disabilities, as can be
seen in the statements of P5 and P7:
P5: We have special schools and they are specially trained.
P7: They cannot sue in the sense that for a start, there is special school to go to.
Why dont they?
In the introduction to this study (Chapter One), the story of an autistic child was
told, who, having waited for many years for a place in the special education school,
had to travel 40km just to study for two hours, for a fee of $200 a month98. If such
misconceptions exist within the professional education community, one wonders how
little the community as a whole knows about students with disabilities.
7.7.3 Bullying
TABLE 7.5
Research Question 2: Bullying
Statements about Bullying
No statement made on bullying specifically.
No statement made on bullying specifically.
Umnot in my primary school experience because I was also in a secondary school

system when I first started teaching and I had a nice range of schools, from aided
school, all boys school, government school of er you know, veryso-called weak
profile where the children come from very weak support and therefore the related
social problems and all that. I dont see it so loud. Of course, that was some years
98
Story taken from The Straits Times, 23 October 2006
258
back but recent years, even proxy through friends, I dont hear it so loudly, it will be
just the minority.
4
There are cases of bullies but we address that very much earlier. Potential bullies
would have been hauled up to my office very much earlier or the discipline committee
would have had a word with them or even meet up with their parents earlier. Again,
proactive intervention. Prevent is better than cure.
If you send a child to the school, you would expect at least the school to have some
minimum steps to take, ertake some responsibility for my childs welfare and safety.
If it comes to a point where the school has not done anything about it, and in the end,
my child sustains serious injured, I myself will be up in arms, if I were parent myself.
As far as my school is concerned, I dont see much. I dont see a trend. Internet
bullying possibly but open bullying, I dont think so.
Bullying? No case, no case. Minor fights, skirmishes, I call them. I handle by just
calling their parents about this. No, they will never threaten legal cases, they are so
embarrassed.
Emotional bullying. There are cases on the internet. There are (sic) a lot of sliming
each other on the line. So they will say, I saw you going out with this boy Its
usually along that kind of lines, its nothing really about work, nothing about
teachers. Its really personal. You know like, Youre a slut, youre a bitch, you
know, that kind of stuff, you know. So the girl gets upset, and they get their friends,
then it becomes many against one.
Take issue against who? I dont see parents taking issue against the school because we
have system in place. Normally we take it seriously. They cannot against (sic) the
school, maybe against the other parent, lah.
Making an issue out of it, yes. For example, I had a case, I think it was last year,
where a parent claimed that his son was bullied by five other boys and he wanted me
to cane the other five boys for the bullying. Of course the other five boys were no
angels, lah. They have had history of so-called bad behaviour, but they have not
bullied this boy before. First report, the father insisted that I cane these five boys.
Other than that, there was another case where a mother insisted that I cane a child
because the boy pushed her son on the basketball court. But they dont threaten to
sue.
There are very few bullies in the school, and usually bullies, we identify them, we
give them counselling and we call in the parents, so more or less, we manage the
bullying. Most of the injury is really out of play, you know, especially in a primary
school. This just happened yesterday. We had children playing, pushing each other,
you know. They start with play, and from play, it goes on toit escalates into bigger
acts, thats where the injury comes in, you know. For example, I play with you, I
259
unintentionally too hard (sic), it hurts you, you get angry, and you push me back
harder still. And then they will end up like that.
10
I think very rarely do bullies cause physical injury. I think more subtle, and more
insidious and psychological. Thats a lot more dangerous and hard to actually deal
with. But I think most of the time, they come to the school for us to provide support.
Bullying, unlikely to cause a problem unless the principal is soummnegligent to the
point that he says, No, its nothing, its just a prank or whatever, but I think most
principals take this very seriously.
7.7.4 Bullying Summary of Findings

The literature review in Chapter Five shows that litigation for bullying mainly arises
if a school, having knowledge about the bullying, fails to do anything about it, and as
a result, the complainant suffers injury. The interviews indicated a similar
perception, in that, litigation should not arise for bullying in schools if the schools
are managing the bullying well. The overall attitude of the participants can be
summed up in the words of P10:
P10: Bullying, unlikely to cause a problem unless the principal is
soummnegligent to the point that he says, No, its nothing, its just a prank
or whatever, but I think most principals take this very seriously.
The participants seemed to suggest that physical bullying did not pose a problem in
Singapore, since it is perceived as a behaviour management problem that should and
could be handled by the school. P3 was of the view that the occurrence of bullying
depends on the economic and social profile of students in the school; but even so,
bullying was not a concern for her. However, two interesting points emerged from
the interviews. One is the potential problem of internet bullying; and the second is
the difficulty in managing the more subtle and insidious kind of emotional bullying.
260
Concerning internet bullying, two authors coined the term cyberbullying the
newest breed of bully99. A cyberbully is one who can reach his or her victims simply
with the click of a mouse, and who can often escape from any legal or disciplinary
consequences. Schools are placed in a difficult position, as they do not see
themselves legally able to discipline students for internet offences occurring outside
school (Conn & Brady, 2007). This sentiment is reflected in the statement of P6:
P6: I cant do very much about that, but we do when it gets very bad.
Sometimes we call them in, the children and the parents, we just inform them,
lah. Its not a discipline case because we are also worried because it took place
in their home computers, so what action should we take?
But in a culture where freedom of expression must be coupled with respect for
authority and the community, the decision in the American case of Tinker v. Des
Moines Independent Community School District (1969) (Tinker) may well provide
some guidance in dealing with cyberbullies. In Tinker, a group of families decided to
protest against the recruiting of youths to fight in the Vietnam War by wearing black
armbands. School officials then passed a regulation to ban the wearing of these
armbands in schools. Three students disregarded the regulation and were suspended.
The Supreme Court of the United States held that the schools regulation was invalid
and stated that schools should only prohibit freedom of expression where such
expression substantially interferes with the operation of the school, infringes the
rights of others or interferes with the students learning. It is the last criterion
interferes with the students learning that may provide the basis for school
intervention in cyber bullying cases.
99
Giannetti, C.C. and Sagarese, M. (undated) The Newest Breed of Bully, the Cyberbully, at
http://www.pta.org/pr_magazine_article_details_1117639656218.html , cited by Conn, K. and Brady,
K.P. (2007) "MySpace and Its Relatives: The Cyberbullying Dilemma" at the 5th Commonwealth Education
Law Conference, 19-21 April, Williamsburg Va, USA.
261
As for the second point on emotional bullying, the literature reveals that it can
come in many forms; cyberbullying, verbal abuse, such as repeated taunting and
insults; and exclusion by peers. The concern of P6 and P10 is in the difficulty in
managing it. This is an issue that will be addressed in the final chapter.
7.7.5 Student Injuries

TABLE 7.6
Research Question 2: Student Injuries
P
1
Statements about Student Injuries

Injury to studentscan be suedits a result of a whole change that society is going
through, you know, like an awareness, you may say increase in knowledgeand I also
think the mindset that now more than ever, their children are very precious
I think when we talk about injury and even er..er..fatal injuries, death and so on,
there are implications, and if nothing happens, nobody makes a big serious issue about
it. But when a serious injury or even a death occurs, given the trauma that the
parents may be going through at the time, theyI think its only natural as a first
reaction to want to look for retribution of some sort, yah. I think schools should be
fully aware of the implications and take the necessary precautions.
I think it may possibly besomething that may be on the rise because now the
supervision parameter has been shifted somewhat a little more vague because with
this parent organisation, with parent volunteer group taking charge of student
activity, umunless, unless we put in place something as quickly as we allow other
form of supervision, for the non teaching staff, we might see more possibility of
injury, because they may not know exactly what are the things and how stringent to
go about it, not as if the trained teachers are any better but I mean by and large, they
are gan cheong (i.e. more anxious) lah, yah, than the volunteer groups or whatever,
you see, who may not know the extent lah, the seriousness. So for that kind of
widening scope of supervision circle, we might see a higher chance.
Talking about my school now - what Im saying is that we are doing everything we can
for the welfare of the child. Im not even considering litigation or parent suing you
know, Im not even thinking about that at all. Im not that arrogant to say that they
wont. But what we are more concerned with is the basic, the fundamental of our
very profession the welfare of the child. So, my guess is that if we get the
fundamentals right, litigation, complaints and all that, should not arisebut I think
our parents more often than not, not taking legal action, more often than not, they
threaten to complain to the Ministry or go to the papers. More of that than anything
else.
262
Injury of course parents will sound a huge cry, alarm, if especially the school never
take precaution, where the school is negligent. If we are parents, you may even do
the same thing also.
Student injurytheyll be very unhappy and they will always threaten, you know,
Have you investigated negligence? Theres this threat. And if they find that the
school has not done its job, How can this happen? is usually the question. If the
school has not done its job, it will threaten to rear its ugly head, lah. But if its not, I
think they are usually alright, especially if you take all the proper remedial action,
only of course when the child is not seriously hurt. When shes seriously hurt, its very
different.
Student injuries? Depends how you, how you manage the situation. Parents are more
understanding if you can handle properly. Its all EQ, how you manage parents. For me
huh, basically, whatever you do, its the welfare that save the children, starting
point. Whatever you do is for the good of the kid. No one can fault anything on you
you on that, if your starting point is right. Rather than talking about whose fault. You
know what Im saying or not. The best interest of the child is the most important,
whatever we do, no one can fault you on that.
I think in many of the cases, the parents are very understanding in fact (laughter). I
had a case of, unfortunately, a child who fainted in the class because the teacher
asked her to stand at the back of the class. It was just a brief moment, but, I think
she probably didnt have breakfast or something and she fell and she became a bit
unconscious for a while. The father called me, and he didnt assert his legal rights. He
just said, ok, he understands what happened and he just want us to be more careful.
Not so much negligence by my teachers, because we make sure we put in the

structures. You have to actually anticipate and foresee a lot of things, you know, like
what is likely to happen, so that you wont be asked by the parents, Why this thing
happened to my child?
10
That one I think theres always scope, especially if theres a question of negligence. I
think from the schools level, its how accountable are we for different things, I
mean, I mentioned earlier, that a parent has full right to feel that we are accountable
for that child when the parent leave that child in our school, but at the same time,
we dont have the ability in the school to be able to focus on that individual child all
the same and to ensure that every aspect of safety, in a situation of flux, that there
are no safety issues. So we can take care of safety issues to the best of our ability,
but, I mean accidents happen, even with our best intentions to protect the child.
Sometimes there are, there are lots of grey areas. For example, we have a big
campus, we cant police the whole campus, so what happens if a child does something
out of the sight of the teacher or the school?
263
7.7.6 Student Injuries Summary of Findings

Cases of student injuries that end up in court in the Commonwealth countries
invariably involve allegations of negligence. From the interviews, one can surmise
that the area of student injuries and negligence has also, to a varying degree,
exerted an impact on the responsibilities of Singaporean educators. When asked if
the trend of litigation for injury to students (in the Commonwealth countries) had
any implications for the participants, the theme of negligence emerges:
P2: I dont think schools or any school deliberately causes this, but I think it
does not reflect well if you attribute it to oversight or negligence.
P4: Negligence means we are careless, we dont plan beforehand.
P5: If especially the school never take precaution, where the school is negligent.
P6: Have you investigated negligence? Theres this threat.
P7: You know excursion the - the legal responsibility of student excursion
overseas and camps and all that. We have to be extra careful, lah. We have to
do a proper..er..er.. RAM (Risk Assessment Management), the
emergency..er..procedures and all that, we have to be careful of all that.
P9: Teachers on duty or even parent volunteersjust to ensure that sort of out
of play, they dont cause injury to each other. This is what I mean by in a
school, the school takes action to ensure that the students are safe, secure and
so on.
P10: That one I think theres always scope, especially if theres a question of
negligence.
In the view of the participants, the presence or absence of negligence seemed to be

the determining factor as to whether litigation might arise for injury to students in
school. The statements suggest that if supervision were provided and standard
operating procedures were in place to ensure safety, then it would be more difficult
to establish negligence. P6 summed up this view:
264
P6: Parents now demand to know the circumstances leading to the injury. They
have a right to know. I mean, How did my child get injured? So you have to
show how lah, and show that there is no negligence. I think once the parents are
assured that there is no negligence, they are not happy, but at least they know
the school has tried and also the follow up action as I said. If you look after the
child after the incident, they are less likely to be unhappy.
There is a contrasting view to this. Participants 4, 7 and 8 believe that if educators

adopt the principle of acting in the best interest of the child in all that they do,
parents will be understanding and will not take any legal action against the school for
student injuries. However, when asked whether this is the position they take for the
society as a whole, the answers were very different. For example:
P4: I guess increasingly more so, there seem to be a trend towards more
litigation. I suppose among staff, they talk about their friends and all that,
people who are threatened with legal action.
P7: More awareness of the legal dimension that the administration may possibly
get involved in if we do not put a system in place.
P8: I think the few understanding ones may more be the exception than the
rule. Umincreasingly we have parents that are better educated and I think my
guess is that they will understand and know their legal rights better.
The answers take us back to the earlier point that there is a need to provide a
system or structure of supervision that can operate as a defence against an action for
negligence. P7 elaborates his point:
P7: I emphasise a lot to the teachers, for example that, the class time, youre
supposed to be in class at a particular time, make sure you are punctual, you are
there, its a duty, a time frame to look after. If your duty is just look after the
crossing road, make sure you are there. If not, anything happen and you are not
there, then you are subject to legal responsibility.
265
It was asserted that the seriousness of any given injury may determine the type of
action taken by the parents for their childs injuries.
P2: if nothing happens, nobody makes a big serious issue about it. But when a
serious injury or even a death occurs, given the trauma that the parents may be
going through at the time, theyI think its only natural as a first reaction to
want to look for retribution of some sort.
P6: I think they are usually alright, especially if you take all the proper remedial
action, only of course when the child is not seriously hurt. When shes seriously
hurt, its very different.
When the injury is not serious, parents are easier to pacify; or if they are not
satisfied with the schools explanation of how the injury occurred, the common
recourse is to make a complaint to the Ministry of Education or write to the press.
But where injury has a longer term or permanent impact on the child, the parents
response may be different and include legal action.
Two other points emerged from the data: first, implications for the role of parent
volunteers in the supervision of students; and, second, the extent to which the
school should provide supervision. P3 was concerned that parents may not be the
right people to supervise students, but, interestingly, in the same breadth, she said,
not as if the trained teachers are any better. Then P9 and P10 had this to say:
P9: But what is adequate supervision, how much? Then the other thing is - what
is the personal responsibility? What do you deem as the childs personal
responsibility and what is the schools responsibility? The ability to foresee or to
anticipate what might happen, because some teachers can see, some teachers
cannot see. It really depends on the individual. So, actually to what degree we
can take the risk?
P10: We have a big campus, we cant police the whole campus, so what happens
if a child does something out of the sight of the teacher or the school?
266
This topic seemed to raise more questions than answers, but it identified the need
for school leaders to have some knowledge of the law with respect to the area of
negligence in schools. This, again, will be addressed in the final chapter.
7.7.7 Behaviour Management Corporal Punishment

TABLE 7.7
Research Question 2: Corporal Punishment
P
1
Statements about Corporal Punishment

I am responsible. I cannot say that my teacher did it. I am responsible. At the end of
it, the principal is accountable. So my message to the teachers is that no amount of
contract signing by the teacher that they will not slap the boy, and the constant
reminder at contact time, actually at the end of the day, this will not help me much if
something really bad happens.
I think we must reflect and review our practices and see whether some of these are
outdated.
As long as you dont lay hands, beyond that, I think its a very relative thing. But if, if
that kind of demand from public and other stakeholders is about averaging out, then
it should go down because school management are now looking very much into
processes and alignment of some of these things that areare going on, so, corporal
punishment, Im quite certain, with the recent very loud message, corporal
punishment should not ever occur out of ignorance anymore. I think over the last few
years, it has been ermy own sensing lah, even the denial stage from teachers like
Hey, whats all this? I mean, why cant I punish? and all that, has actually gone
down. Probably they are accepting the fact that, hey, no point losing, hit over this
because I might lose my job, because the message is very loud from the system at
large that you dont do it. Because earlier on, there was still some struggle to the
equilibrium. Although they know, they say, Heck, I just - cant stand it anymore.
Its definitely a rule that we live by in school no one can pan handle a child, if it is a
girl, you are not allowed to touch her, let alone wallop her, thats what happened to
that principal, right? Thats very clear cut. So, under no circumstances can we
contravene that. So even for aa boy, if youre going to cane him or punish him,
corporal punishment, mete out corporal punishment, there must be very clear
guidelines, that every step has been looked into, with proper recording, that the
punishment is meted out for correction, not to inflict pain alone.
As for caning, caning itself, there are rules guided, alright, especially for boys, and
267
how you do it. So if a case warrants a caning, definitely I dont think the parents have
a case, lah, you know. If they want to fight it out, I dont think they will have a case if
you can proof everything, you see. But if you are asking whether parents will sue for
such things, I think they may, they will. As I said, they are more knowledgeable,
number one. Number two, our service, we still have very senior teachers, teachers
who may not have seen students huh, umso extrovert before, you know, this group
of teachers, may, in a way, sometimes huh, for whatever reasons, huh, may
accidentally hit them or whatever. But normally such things that happens, most of the
time, the school will be able to handle.
6
There was a Chinese teacher who slapped a boy and erhappened in the class.
Slapped until so hard that the glasses flew off across the room and the whole class
witnessed it. So, the parent came of course, and actually the teacher came to tell me
about it. Luckily, during those times, which was in the late 1990s, they were less
erinto taking legal action but certainly threats were issued, lah. And I felt that that
was definitely a real case, lah. I havent come across it now because I warn my
teachers severely.
I think, I think corporal punishment is something we have to watch carefully. Corporal

punishment can mean a lot of things huh, even in verbal. It can be, in the future, can
be an area of concern. Examples of corporal punishment - you hit the kids in many
ways, slap kids, cane the kid with marks around the hands and the legs, pulling their
hair. Sometimes they up to - very in a way, mun zhang (very agitated) or so, really
up to the point where they are overwhelmed. Some teachers couldnt control
themselves. Like throwing books students books away. This is not right you know.
Im not so sure how, how parents are going to perceive themselves as better managers
of behaviour, but I think they probably will still expect the school teachers to manage
behaviour in an appropriate manner rather than through corporal punishment or
through other methods that demean the integrity or the worth of the child. I think
that is something that parents will increasingly expect. Well, I mean as a parent
myself, I really would not want my own childs teachers to manage my childs
behaviour in an inappropriate manner.
Corporal punishment is one of them. Very likely litigation can arise if you hurt their
children, especially nowadays parents are very protective of their child. Very likely I
would say corporal punishment, and also how punishment is given out. Maybe it may
not be corporal punishment. It could be verbal abuse by teachers. Ititshouldnt go
beyond..ummumm, it should be within thishow do I say itit shouldnt actually
damage self esteem. If that comes in, parents will get very angry.
10
These are all discipline systems. Ummwhether it will be a legal problem, I suppose
theres always the potential that it can escalate to become one. I give you an
example, many years ago, when students had long hair, if you got caught, you went to
some room and someone cut your hair, when I was in school, they actually did that
also, and this is like when dinosaurs roamed the earth. And, and my school had a nice
268
way of doing it. They just put 2 holes here and then, and then say, You do the rest.
I dont think you can do it now. I wonder if there is a legal position for the schools in
cutting the students hair anymore.
I give you another example. There are some places where you are late you run round
the field. Ok, a child not having breakfast and all that, collapses, what happens?
There are so many of these kinds of potential blast points, and I still see some of it
happening. I do worry sometimes. So far we dont see it in the papers, so I assume
that there are not that many cases of parents suing. Some of the things that we do in
good faith for our students and all that, just doesnt (sic) work anymore. We need to
review and some of these things, we need to stop actually. It just takes ONE case to
go awry, and you have all these legal issues to deal with.
7.7.8 Corporal Punishment Summary of Findings

Although the common law permits the use of corporal punishment as a means of
behavioural correction, the literature suggests that most jurisdictions, for various
reasons, including adherence to the principles of the CRC, have chosen to disallow
physical discipline on students. When Singapore acceded to the CRC, Singapore
expressly declared that a child's rights, as defined in the Convention, shall be
exercised with respect for the authority of parents, schools and other persons who
are entrusted with the care of the child, and that article 19 does not prohibit the
judicious application of corporal punishment in the best interest of the child (United
Nations Treaty Collection, 2001). Nevertheless, schools are given strict guidelines by
the Ministry of Education on how and when to administer corporal punishment.
When asked if there is a trend, as seen overseas, where parents take issue with the
school regarding corporal punishment, the participants had divergent views.
However, a common theme became evident: unlike the past, where teachers did not
need to exercise any constraint in meting out corporal punishment, this position is no
longer feasible.
P2: We must reflect and review our practices and see whether some of these are
outdated.
269
P10: Some of the things that we do in good faith for our students and all that,
just doesnt (sic) work anymore. We need to review and some of these things,
we need to stop actually. It just takes ONE case to go awry, and you have all
these legal issues to deal with.
The fear of litigation is very real for most of the participants. P10 went on to say:
P10: Right now, I think our society is stillnot quite, I hope we dont ever get
there, like the Americans will sue at the toss of a coin, or at least thats
sometimes the image we get. But II really believe if we dont reduce some of
the things we do, its just a question of time before more of this will surface,
first its complaints, and then people will take legal action.
Two main reasons are given for this change from the past. The first is that the
profiles of parents have changed:
P6: During earlier times, we try to mitigate, lah. I think they wont threaten
action then. If it happens now, like if one of my teachers slapped, they will
definitely threaten action. Thatthatthat parent then, at that time, they are
less educated parents. The mother was a hawker, it has never crossed her mind
to sue a teacher, they are the kind who think like, Oh, you know better, right.
Now its a different type of parents, You have no right to hit my child, which
is absolutely true, I have to agree, we have no right to hit the child.
P7: I think corporal punishment is a very big area. Its a key worry for me down
the road. To what extent are our teachers well trained to handle students is
very important, especially in primary schools. Do they have the patience or not?
Sometimes, the way teachers react, it can be a worry. Thats why we have to
keep an eye. Something we have to be careful, lah, in a sense lah, cos today,
parents are different from yester-years. They are better educated, they demand
their right.
The second reason that children are becoming more and more precious to parents
because of the declining birth rate. As a result, parents are very protective over their
children and there is a high level of mollycoddling at home:
270
P7: For a start, children dont subject (sic) to being hit at all at home. Its the
other way, its the kids whack the parents. I see primary kids kick at their
parents leg and the parents let the kid do that. They are cuddled and all by
maids and they abuse the maid. Children abusing the maids! You know that! You
know how children talk to the maids, scolded all the maids like...likelike
zombie around at home. They come to school they thought they can do that to
teachers. First thing I told the children coming to this school, There is no maid
in this school, sorry. Teachers deserve your respect. They are not your maid.
P9: Very likely litigation can arise if you hurt their children, especially nowadays
parents are very protective of their child.
This notion of overprotecting children at home was also perceived by P8, who said:
P8: Im not so sure how, how parents are going to perceive themselves as better
managers of behaviourIn 1983 I taught in a village school for 5 years, and
parents really encouraged the teachers to cane their child, and some teachers
didthe parents didnt care much you know and there was a lot of respect for
the teachers and the parents never interfered in anything, everything was
basically left to the teachers, no questions asked, you know, about how you
teach and how you manage the pupils behaviour you know, yah. Nowadays, its
not like that, you know. Like I said earlier, even if you scolded the child
inappropriately, parents calling me, emailing me, you know.
P8 identified another unacceptable aspect of disciplining students that of using

punishment that demeans the integrity or the worth of the child. He gave the
example of inappropriate scolding, but it would probably involve other punishment,
such as making the student wear a dunce cap or a placard, or making a student run
around a field excessively. P9 agreed that it is not acceptable to scold a child in the
wrong manner:
P9: It could be verbal abuse by teachersit shouldnt actually damage self
esteem. If that comes in, parents will get very angry.
271
Even though the general view was that disciplining students had become more
challenging for educators, there was a presumption that if policy and guidelines were
followed, litigation should not arise. This presumption is reflected in the statements
of P3, P4 and P5:
P3: It should go down (i.e. complaints or threats of legal action) because school
management are now looking very much into processes and alignment of some of
these things that areare going on, so, corporal punishment, Im quite certain,
with the recent very loud message, corporal punishment should not ever occur
out of ignorance anymore.
P4: Im saying if we are able to manage it well, then litigation MIGHT NOT have
to arise. There is a trend coming to Singapore, that cases regarding behaviour
management may reach our courts, so its becoming a challenge for principals.
P5: there are rules guided, alright, especially for boys, and how you do it. So if
a case warrants a caning, definitely I dont think the parents have a case, lah,
you know. If they want to fight it out, I dont think they will have a case if you
can proof everything, you see.
But are teachers always able to go by the book? It is interesting how the comment
from P3 about teachers ability to discipline students contrasts with the views of P7
and P9. According to P3:
P3: with the recent very loud message, corporal punishment should not ever
(emphasis mine) occur out of ignorance anymore.
However, P7 and P9 saw it differently:

P7: Sometimes they up to - very in a way, mun zhang (very agitated in
Cantonese) or so, really up to the point where they are overwhelmed. Some
teachers couldnt control themselves. Like throwing books students books
away. This is not right you know.
P9: Because corporal punishment some times, is meted out in a fit of anger.
Thats the dangerous part of it. You never know how this child will provoke the
272
teacher and the teacher just react. Usually corporal punishment is usually a
reaction. I notice that, after so many years that its usually a reaction. The child
is naughty and the teacher just take (sic) the water bottle and hit him on his
head. Its just a reaction. I just got this case this morning.
P7 and P9 portrayed a realistic picture of the human nature, in that policies and
guidelines cannot stop a teacher from reacting to provocation. Thus corporal
punishment will always be an important issue in the education service. However,
there should not be a need to take the extreme view that a principal is responsible
for a teachers action in administering corporal punishment, as suggested by P1:
P1: I am responsible. I cannot say that my teacher did it. I am responsible. At
the end of it, the principal is accountable. So my message to the teachers is that
no amount of contract signing by the teacher that they will not slap the boy, and
the constant reminder at contact time, actually at the end of the day, this will
not help me much if something really bad happens.
7.7.9 Behaviour Management Suspension and Expulsion

TABLE 7.8
Research Question 2: Suspension and Expulsion
Statements about Suspension and Expulsion
No comments were made by P1 on this issue.
Personally I have dealt with several issues. I think some times in dealing with
recalcitrant students. I have expelled students, yah, and parents have taken or
threatened to take legal action against me. They can, they can, but I think these
things can be resolved if we bring all parties together, sit down and talk about these
issues. Sometimes I think a potential situation arises because of miscommunication or
a lack of communication.
I think suspension and expulsion should not be so much of a problem because our
system had actually catered for many varieties of our children and the hard core cases
for suspension, I think far and few in numbers, so I dont see it escalating. There will
still be some misplaced people in the system, but that should form the small, very,
very small core, yah.
273
Behaviour management it really stamps from my role as a principal. What do I see?

Do I anticipate? Do I assume that the childrens behaviour will always be ok? Do I just
allow things to carry on on its own, and assuming that the teachers will always be able
to manage? Classes that are badwe work very closely with the Pastoral Care
department where we actually anticipate, and we have a proactive programme to
involve and engage those kids. So theres a lot of dialogue, a lot conversation, a lot of
discussion and talk, to surface issues of this nature. So when things do erhave a
potential of occurring, then the kids are already aware of it.
Umexpulsion is always used as a very, very last resort. I dont think there are many
over the years. Ummost of the method the principals use is to ask the student to go
and look for your own school, to advise them to look for your own school because as
principals, we do not really want to use expulsion. Its really the lastIn fact, I recall
my 5 years in school, I have not used it. Normally, the few very naughty cases, we ask
them to try to look for another school, and most of the time, the parents will oblige
and try. So, if you think of whether parents will sue the school for expulsion, I think
this is very minimal.
I think it depends on how you handle, the suspension, expulsion, if you just ask the
child to leave, there will be threats, but because I make sure I never do that, I always
call the parents, letter lah, you know the whole works lah. Make sure you do all the
pres, so they got nothing to complain about, lor. I have never given them a case to
complain about. I have actually suspended and expelled children before but its after
a l..o..n..g drawn process. You know like, dont come, warning, call the parents, your
child is being sent home, so that they are never left on the streets. To me, the
concern is not that the child is asked to leave school, but if an accident happens to
the child on the way home, definitely we are liable, because its school hours.
Suspension and expulsion? No, not that. I dont think so. First of all, in the handbook,
our student handbook, very clearly spelt out. Our handbook, rules and all that very
clear and you choose to come, you choose to come to this school, you have to agree
what is said in the handbook. If not, please, choose another school. Our handbook is
very clear what is expected. Rules are short and simple, children can understand. Not
too many details. In my whole life here, I had never expelled one boy. 20 years. I
dont believe in expel boy.
There must be very good reasons for it, not so much in a primary school but I think in
the secondary school, we used to actually suspend students before and that must be
within the school rules. In other words, it must be laid down and communicated, you
know, to the whole school population, alright and they must be aware of it. You dont
just suspend and say that Im giving you suspension like that. Thats why ummin our
schools, the consequences of their actions must be defined very clearly, either in
black and white copies, or it must be somewhere in the school, alright, and made
274
known to all the students. This is important. No excuse to say that they are not aware
that this action will be taken against them, even in a primary school.
It is very important for the school to inform the parents that this is the action we are
going to take, because your child, the offence is so grave that we have to take this
action and then after much consideration, you can give the case history and so on.
Most likely, they will not kick up a fuss because usually school will only carry out such
action after they have a record.
10
7.7.10 Suspension and Expulsion Summary of Findings

Suspension and expulsion is another means albeit an extreme strategy - of school
discipline or behaviour management. Although the interview question specifically
asked the participants whether suspension and expulsion could possibly raise any
legal issues for them, three participants did not offer any comments. The researcher
interprets their lack of comment as an indication that this topic was of little or no
relevance to them. Of those who put forward their views, their assessment can be
summed up as follows:
1. Cases of suspension and expulsion are few and far between, because Singapore
provides for the many types of children in the education system:
P3: There will still be some misplaced people in the system, but that should
form the small, very, very small core.
P5: Normally, the few very naughty cases, we ask them to try to look for
another school, and most of the time, the parents will oblige and try.
2. There are other ways of handling behaviour problems, and expulsion does not need
to be used:
P3: We actually anticipate, and we have a proactive programme to involve and
engage those kids.
P7: Normally I do in-house suspension, do your personal work and then
suspension at home with parents agreement.
275
3. If children have breached school rules and proper procedures are followed, when
students are suspended or expelled, parents have no reason to fault the school:
P6: Make sure you do all the pres, so they got nothing to complain about, lor.
I have never given them a case to complain about. I have actually suspended and
expelled children before but its after a l..o..n..g drawn process.
P7: Our handbook, rules and all that very clear and you choose to come, you
choose to come to this school, you have to agree what is said in the handbook. If
not, please, choose another school.
P9: Thats why ummin our schools, the consequences of their actions must be
defined very clearly, either in black and white copies, or it must be somewhere
in the school, alright, and made known to all the students. This is important. No
excuse to say that they are not aware that this action will be taken against
them, even in a primary school.
It is interesting that none of the participants mentioned the term due process in
their responses. There is an assumption that once the school rules are broken, the
school has the prerogative to impose the punishment. Only P4 indirectly referred to
the need to give the student the opportunity to make representations about the
suspension or expulsion:
P4: So theres a lot of dialogue, a lot conversation, a lot of discussion and talk,
to surface issues of this nature. So when things do erhave a potential of
occurring, then the kids are already aware of it.
Even where there is threat of litigation over a students suspension or expulsion, it

was felt that the potential conflict can be resolved simply by communication with
the parents:
P2: I think these things can be resolved if we bring all parties together, sit
down and talk about these issues. Sometimes I think a potential situation arises
because of miscommunication or a lack of communication.
276
P3: In my short experience in the education service, I dontI havent come

across something that cannot be resolved at a school level. And most parents
just need to be listened to and er they generally do give us that respect lah,
and then move on from there, yah.
7.7.11 Educational Malpractice

TABLE 7.9
Research Question 2: Educational Malpractice
P
1
Statements about Educational Malpractice

in the past if we hear of our child not really learning very much because the
teacher was so called lousy, we probably, aiyah, you know and then we try to
support our child in different ways. We are not so quick to go to the principal to say
this, but now its so easy, you get a phone call, you get a letter.
No comments made by P2 on this issue.
Ive never heard of anybody being sued for this. Usually it is complaints and the few
that I know are all settled within school, and usually, like I said, its a relative
expectation andand after some talking toto the parents, and advising them and
both sides giving leeway lah. Sometimes its really our inadequacies. Its not all the
time wrong. I mean some are very interesting and er interesting perceptions of how
effective teaching should be, like you know, using red ink to circle thing or using a
yellow pen to circle thing, or using a certain kind of mechanical pencil are also
demanded by the parents, you know, to be more effective than what the teachers
suggest. So within the school, we give the teachers autonomy, but the parents
wouldnt let go you know, (laughter) some of these, you know, suggested
approaches.
So far there has been no case like that at all, or even threats of legal action or
litigation. If there is a complaint, then it might actually end up in litigation.
Poor teaching I dont think so that parents will take up a case against a teacher. As
I said, parents may express their concern, call up the school, talk to the principal
and see what can be done, you see. That one I think is the least to worry about.
MOE complaints plenty, plenty. Relief teachers too many. How come you change
my daughters teacher so many times? How can you send in relief teachers who cant
teach. Your teachers dont teach good English. My daughter dont (sic) understand
your teacher. So its a complaint. Can you do something about it, or Ill write to the
MOE. Very common. Poor teaching usually relief teacher or NIE teacher.
277
Again, what do you define poor teaching? You are a layman, you are not a
professional. What do you term poor teaching? Teachers are trained, they are
professional for a start, or else they wont be certified to teach in school. You cant
say poor teaching. Poor teaching, not to your expectation. Whose expectation, isnt
it?
I think huh, lets take out the ones that really dont pertain. I think nobody gets sued
for bad teaching here.
From my secondary school experience, I dont have a lot of complaints about poor
teaching from parents, maybe lazy teachers, but not so much from parents. Maybe
they dont know the contents of the secondary school syllabus. But primary school,
you tend to get parents who will write in to tell you, why is your teacher teaching
this way or that way or something like that. But these are very few.
10
Poor teaching, at the moment I believe its not a problem partly because our systems
are pretty rigorous and all that but again, with the higher expectations from parents,
I think its a question of time where parents will just walk in and say my child is not
getting these grades because of your poor teacher. I think we need to be prepared
for that.
7.7.12 Educational Malpractice - Summary of Findings

It is an accepted fact that schools owe students a duty of care. Generally, this duty
of care refers to taking responsibility for the students physical well-being while they
are in school, and negligence in doing so may result in liability. Arguably, the same
duty of care should include looking after the educational needs of students as well.
The question put to the participants was whether they perceived a possibility of
parents making legal claims on the basis that their children did not achieve expected
educational outcomes due to poor teaching. P1s response provided an excellent
backdrop to the answers of the other participants:
P1: in the past if we hear of our child not really learning very much because
the teacher was so called lousy, we probably, aiyah, you know and then we try
to support our child in different ways. We are not so quick to go to the principal
to say this
278
Most of the participants agreed that they were increasingly seeing parents concerns
over their childrens academic achievements. However, they felt that where poor
teaching was alleged, parents would at most make a complaint but not threaten any
legal action. In fact, P5 said:
P5: I think this area is the least to worry about.
Similarly, P3, P6, P8 and P9 had this to say:

P3: Ive never heard of anybody being sued for this. Usually it is complaints and
the few that I know are all settled within school.
P6: Poor teaching? Complaints lah, they are usually complaints, not legal.
P8: I think nobody gets sued for bad teaching here.
P9: There were cases where I have complaints about teachers teaching, you
know not professional enough, inadequate teaching, and so on lah. So thats
mainly that. In the years to come, you may have more complaints. But to the
extent of legal action, I dont think so. Not so much about poor teaching.
Although P4 had no experience of complaints about poor teaching, he made the

comment that if there were indeed complaints, then it is possible in the future for
complaints to lead to litigation.
P4: If there is a complaint, then it might actually end up in litigation.
This view is shared with P10, who said:

P10: My sense is that in ten years time, with a more demanding public, with
people with higher expectations of schools, I think we need to be ready for that
very thing about poor teaching. I send my child to your school, your school
claims that you are going to develop this, that and the other and my child hasnt
attained that. Most parents would nowadays just say, well, my child doesnt
have the ability and all that.
But the difficulty in establishing poor teaching is apparent to P3 and P7. To them,
poor teaching is a subjective issue and all a matter of parental expectations.
279
P3: Like I said, its a relative expectationI mean some are very interesting and
er interesting perceptions of how effective teaching should be, like you know,
using red ink to circle thing or using a yellow pen to circle thing, or using a
certain kind of mechanical pencil P7: You cant say poor teaching. Poor
teaching, not to your expectation. Whose expectation, isnt it?
P7 went so far as to say that, since education is free, parents will have to be
contented with the professional service provided by the school. If they feel that the
teaching is not up to their expectations, then they should find another school:
P7: If you think teaching not to your expectation, the right thing you get out.
You dont stay in this school. First of all, education is free. You pay nothing you
know. We dont demand anything you know. When you pay a hefty sum in a
private school, yes, you might do that. You choose to come in, you have free
education, what else you want?
Thus, there is a suggestion by P7 that a higher standard of teaching can reasonably

be expected by parents who send their children to private schools:
P7: Private education, they pay, they might may face an issue. Because I pay as
a customer, I expect some sort of standard from you.
P9 highlighted an interesting aspect of this question of poor teaching. She was of

the view that, with the Ministry of Educations method of evaluating teachers
performance100, complaints of poor teaching should decrease, since the so called
poor teachers should be removed from the system.
P9: now we have a process of getting rid of poor teachers, you know. Now
we have this, shall we say, our new appraisal system and this appraisal system
will weed out all the teachers who are not performing, the D grade, the E grade,
and so on. They will slowly go, you see. I think complaints about poor teaching
will decrease lah.
100
Under the Enhanced Performance Management System, teachers are ranked from grades A to E.
An E grade means the teacher is performing below satisfactory level and will be monitored closely. If
no improvement is shown over a prescribed period of time, the E grade teacher will be dismissed.
280
One might take a contrary stance. Paradoxically, while the intent may be to define
teacher performance as objectively as possible in order to weed out poor teachers
(and reward the good ones), such measures of performance may provide a clear
indication that unacceptable standards (for example, a D grade) are tolerated. Thus,
defining standards can actually backfire, especially if the data becomes available to
those outside the domain of evaluator and evaluated.
Several themes emerged from the above and these are discussed in the final chapter.
7.7.13 Sexual Misconduct

TABLE 7.10
Research Question 2: Sexual Misconduct
P
1
Statements about Sexual Misconduct

Sexual abuse cases, I dont see that yet. Its more the physical side, like should you
have the drain there or whether children should be allowed to run during recess.
I think, ersexual conduct, yah. I noticeer, I dont whether it is because we are

more open about this. Increasingly its not just the traditional school going age we
are talking about. These days young children, with more and more working parents,
they put young children with caregivers, yah, and erI think they are more
um(pause for a few seconds) susceptible to some kind of abuse, and we should be
mindful of that. I think increasingly, we must be more careful.
Oh, this is what I hear from friends of molestation and all that, of children sexual
misconduct by teachers. As for personally, I cant tell, I cant tell. Hopefully the
recruitment process will be better so that we dont get strange people coming in. I
feel that these are people who are actually having other kinds of stress symptoms
that may not have been manifested in the teacher at recruitment point.
I dont know if theres a trend because Im very careful. I speak to everyone. Every
teacher has one session with me, apart from their work review that they do with
their superior officers. Youre bound to be able to pick up something. If theres any
hint, any whisper, any breadth of possibility, it will be dealt with.
This is one area I think its good for schools should know a little bit more about it.
Because now we have globalisation, our IT is so advanced, you know. Nowadays the
students are more open, and they may get into trouble like this. Open in the sense
281
that they want to try everything and they try to copy whatever people do and they
get themselves into trouble, i.e. students and students, and also possibility of
teacher and students.
6
I had one I had to investigate when this school quite new. The teacher has leftbut
hes in another school where there was an alleged molest case, so they checked
the record, and it seems in the latest things, the girls from the new school
commented/wrote that he has a thing with one of our girls then. So I had to
investigate, the student refused to say anything, but admitted that she had seen
the teacher outside school even after hes left. Even admitted that they held hands
but no, nothing physical, I mean, some touching, touching kind, lah, no kissing.
Apparently just touch hands little bit, touch shoulders maybe a little bit. But nothing
beyond that, she claimed.
We have only one case under investigationa very er..difficult case in the sense that
children already graduated four years agoBoy student complaining against another
male teacherBut the parents dont want to press charges. So how do you do that,
whose word against whose? Teacher is still with me and he is the best we have. Very
caring and all that, and he has been with us for more than 10 years, so caring and
helping the students from his personal pocket, so many poor students. If anything
happened, parents will complain and come to my office. Not a word from parents.
There was a school attendant alleged to have molested a pupil. So ummwhen this
incident happened, I reminded my male staff and I called in my cleaning contractor
and tell her please advise your male staff to exercise more care. Sometimes its not
intentional, you know, it could be accidental. But I mean if you put yourself in the
position where you could disadvantage yourself sometimes. So I just told them.
I mean sometimes its a fatherly type, this man (the school attendant) he said
fatherly touch but this one is not fatherly one, lah (laughter). Some may be really
genuine, you know, but then after that, you get accused of molest. Just keep your
hands clear of female students lah. Thats what I tell my male teachers.
I had a case of breach of conduct. Sexual misconduct but not with students, with
another adult outside. Because of the nature of the act, there is the fear that once
10
this is known, then youll find that parents will object. Thats why he was
terminated, I guess. I think there is certain conduct that is unacceptable.
No comments made by P10 on this issue.
282
7.7.14 Sexual Misconduct - Summary of Findings

Earlier in this chapter, it was noted that one of the consequences of globalisation is
that with the permeability of communication and information, attitudes concerning
sexual values have shifted. Society has become more open and sexual misconduct
in schools is beginning to be a worry for school leaders:
P2: and with the internet, with growing pornography, you know, sexual values,
norms may change or shift.
P5: now we have globalisation, our IT is so advanced, you know. Nowadays the
students are more open, and they may get into trouble like this. Open in the
sense that they want to try everything and they try to copy whatever people do
and they get themselves into trouble, i.e. students and students, and also
possibility of teacher and students.
In addition to this, as Singapore is targeting a pupil-to-teacher ratio of below 20 for

primary schools by 2010 (Lui, 2007), large numbers of teachers are being recruited
yearly. While this may be a commendable move by the government, one participant
expressed concerns:
P7: But we are taking in a lot of teachers in big hoards. Hoard after hoards
coming in. (Sigh) Very worried you know. I tell you what, are they cut out for
teaching or not, morally, other things, you know, how do you judge, you know?
For example huh, this teacher teaching for 3 years, start to have sexual
relationship with children. Remember, waswas jailed? Third year only you
know. Thats what I mean, hor. Quite frightening, you know. In my time, never
heard of this. Only recently. There are 2 cases already like this you know. Yes,
teacher sexual misconduct. Quite worrisome.
P3 recognised that P7s concern could be addressed during the recruitment process,
but, even then, there is no guarantee that a potential child molester will not slip
through the net:
283
P3: Hopefully the recruitment process will be better so that we dont get
strange people coming in. I feel that these are people who are actually having
other kinds of stress symptoms that may not have been manifested in the
teacher at recruitment point.
Apart from P1 and P10, who did not express any unease over this issue, the other
participants either had experiences of dealing with sexual misconduct incidents, or
were very cautious about issuing instructions to teachers when it came to interaction
with students.
Incidents:
P3: I have dealt with some cases. This can be quite shocking for me initially.
P6: So I had to investigate, admitted that they held hands but no, nothing
physical, I mean, some touching, touching kind, lah, no kissing. Apparently just
touch hands little bit, touch shoulders maybe a little bit. But nothing beyond
that, she claimed. I think this is a growing problem, the student-teacher
relationship part, the physical, sexual types.
P7: one case under investigationa very er..difficult case in the sense that
children already graduated four years agoBoy student complaining against
another male teacherBut the parents dont want to press charges. So how do
you do that, whose word against whose?
P8: There was a school attendant alleged to have molested a pupil I mean
sometimes its a fatherly type, this man (the school attendant) he said fatherly
touch but this one is not fatherly one, lah (laughter).
P9: I had a case of breach of conduct. Sexual misconduct but not with students,
with another adult outside.
Two cases stood out from the rest. The first was the one mentioned by P8. P8s case
did not involve a teacher, but rather a school attendant. If the school had engaged
an ostensibly competent person to work in the school, it would be difficult to hold
284
the school liable for the school attendants action if he acted outside the scope of his
employment. The second case was the one mentioned by P9. That case raises an
entirely different issue of whether a teachers conduct outside school hours should
be regulated by policy, and if so, what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable
conduct. This issues is outside the scope of the study, but it provides an interesting
topic for further discussion and research.
Regardless of whether the participants had experience of dealing with sexual

misconduct cases, most of them indicated that they were very cautious about
teacher and student interaction:
P2: I think increasingly, we must be more careful.
P3: But I think primary school, by and large, we will not want to take the chance
to leave the children with having none of our staff there, not even one. I
personally will not do that, yah. No matter how trusting, I wouldnt know the
person, molestation, could be things that we are afraid of, not only falling or
that kind of thing you see. Its the quiet kind of injury that I am more worried
about.
P4: Im very careful. I speak to everyone. Every teacher has one session with
me, Youre bound to be able to pick up something. If theres any hint, any
whisper, any breadth of possibility, it will be dealt with.
P6: I warn the male teachers against their physical behaviour with the female
students. I warn them because some students can be very vicious and can turn
around and accuse what happened to the ACS principal101so I warn the male
teachers never to be alone with a female student in closed doorsNever, never
and always two, and not in isolated corners of the schoolits part of their
orientation and induction, and I reinforce it during staff meetings, Its to
protect them,...and I warn my CCA teachers. They also watch out for their
101
A 16 year old students mother alleged that the principal had held her son's hand, hugged him and
given him a peck on the neck while counselling her son. An inquiry was conducted by the School Board
and the principal was cleared unanimously of all allegations of improper behaviour while counselling the
teenage boy.
285
coaches. technically, MOE says we can leave them with adult and coaches
unsupervised by teachers. But what happens if they are male? If anything
happens, it will surely come back to me. I know its a very weird problem. It
seems negligent when you didnt put a female teacher when you know theres a
male coach in charge.
P7: every time the teachers in my staff meeting, the two things that are very
taboo. One is on moral issue, the other is on corruption I make it very clear.
Every year, I remind my staff. Certain things like for example, camping, cannot
stay overnight. When with a student, must always withgroup work, or in the
presence of other adult teachersAnd no private meetings outside school with
children.
P8: I have reminded staff to be more careful about how they communicate with
girls, female studentsIf I have to talk to a female student, I make sure there
are a few other students in the room and this is something that I practised from
the moment I started teaching. you put yourself in the position where you
could disadvantage yourself sometimesJust keep your hands clear of female
students lah. Thats what I tell my male teachers.
An interesting point emerged from the above: the question of whether the school
would be liable should students be sexually abused by external parties engaged by
the school. It is not uncommon for schools to engage coaches for various extracurricular activities. To what extent does a school have a duty of care to protect
students from non-staff? This is an issue that concerned P3 and P7 and raises the
question of non-delegable duty of care or the imposition of strict liability on the
school to assume responsibility for any harm suffered by students. In the Australian
case of Lepore102, the High Court was reluctant to impose a non-delegable duty of
care for an intentional act of an employee. Similarly, it is unlikely that the Singapore
courts will impose such strict liability on the schools. Nevertheless, it is encouraging
102
see Chapter Five, page 130
286
to see school leaders recognising this important issue and taking the necessary
precautions to prevent sexual abuse of students by staff or non-staff.
7.8
What are the potential major areas of concern (e.g. behaviour management and
discipline, supervison and injury to students) relating to schools and the law that
are likely to emerge in Singapore?
From the results of the interview so far, one observes that school leaders in
Singapore, to a large or small extent, probably face the same legal issues that are
experienced by educators in the countries mentioned in the literature. Going by the
experience they have had, the participants were asked what they thought were the
major areas of concern relating to schools and the law that would likely emerge in
Singapore.
The major area of concern identified by the all the participants was that of safety
and negligence. Below are brief extracts of the comments that were made:
P1: I think safety, physical safety will emerge. That one WILL (emphasis by P1).
P2: I think safety. Because these days schools do take students overseas and so
onit does not reflect well if you attribute it to oversight or negligence.
P3: There is such a thing called negligenceits something that the parents will
come back to the schoolI really hope that more of us can be clearer about
some of the implications, especially going out for excursion and all those stuff
and all that.
P4: I think negligence, safety of children. Thats the fundamental.
P5: Emerging area injury and safety.
287
P6: Threatened legal action due to student injury, quite a lot similar, something
happened to the child, nothing to do with the schooland they will always
threaten, you know, have you investigated negligence
P7: I can see the trend, of lets say area of personal injury involving sports and
all that. The school is taking a lot of risk risk taking activities scuba diving,
canoeing in the sea, taekwondo, rock climbing this is all into high risk.
P8: Safety of the child, injury to the child.
P9: The care in terms of safety, security, thats one, ok. Ummwhether there is
adequate supervision, alright, anticipating injuries, alright, risk management,
thats another area because we are going out all the timeduty not to be
negligent.
P10: I think the first one will be accountability issueswhen I talk about
accountability, Im talking about safety and well-being.
As educators acting in loco parentis, it is perceivable that school leaders place the
safety of students as a major area of concern. Using the words of P4 and P10,
accountability for student safety is fundamental; perhaps, one could say, nonnegotiable. The importance of this issue arises from the change in the way students
are educated. Unlike many years ago, where students were usually desk-bound and
involved in simple and relatively harmless activities, P2, P3, P7 and P9 pointed out
that students nowadays participate in many high risk activities and excursions. As a
result, school leaders need to carry out risk assessments, and plan activities well in
order to avoid any possibility of negligence. This was the attitude of P7 and he
summed it up with resignation:
P7: If you are frightened into not doing anything because of the fear of
litigation, you can close shop no education.
But injury to students may not always result from organized activities. P6s comment
- something happened to the child, nothing to do with the school - arose from a
288
suicide case in her school, in which the parents alleged that the school was negligent
in not informing them immediately that their child had admitted to stealing a
handphone103. This case highlights the fact that the area of negligence is not limited
to physical injury, but extends to psychological safety, such as dealing with bullies or
informing parents of potential suicidal tendencies where such tendencies, are
exhibited. As P3 correctly pointed out:
P3: so, the negligence part, yes, I really hope that more of us can be clearer
about some of the implications
After safety and negligence, sexual misconduct of teachers and behaviour

management were of second importance, and the majority of the participants felt
these two issues would be, if they were not already, areas of concern for school
leaders and teachers. The views of the participants on these two topics have been
discussed in some detail above, so they will not be repeated here. However, with
regard to behaviour management, P3 succinctly explained why there is a shift in
parental attitude:
P3: because the bulk of them are having fewer children, so very precious lah,
very high strung over, you know, the slightest cutI mean, when we were
younger, (laughter) you all know lah, cane already, better still lah, cane some
more. I give you the authority.
The other topics educational malpractice or poor teaching, bullying and special
needs were not identified by the participants as areas of concern for the future,
except for a few comments by several participants. About poor teaching, P10 had
this to say:
103
The coroner recorded a verdict of misadventure in this case. In the verdict, the coroner said it was
very difficult for a teacher to decide what to do as different children react differently. In another case
which he also heard, it was alleged that the student committed suicide because the teacher called the
parents over a discipline issue. In the present case, the parents claimed that if the school had called
them, they would have prevented the suicide, so which is the correct way?
289
P10: My sense is that in ten years time, with a more demanding public, with
people with higher expectations of schools, I think we need to be ready for that
very thing about poor teachingMost parents would nowadays just say, my child
doesnt have the ability and all that. Every school, if you look at their core
purpose and mission statements, are making a promise of certain expectations,
its a question of time before parents are going to say. What happened with my
kid?
For bullying, the concern of P5 and P6 was the emotional or psychological bullying
that takes place over the internet, rather than the physical type of bullying:
P5: Internet bullying possibly but open bullying I dont think so.
P6: emotional bullyingthere are cases on the internetmore and more
internet casesreally, really, its coming up.
Only P4 felt that special needs may be an emerging area of concern and,
interestingly, P4 linked this area to bullying:
P4: We were just talking about special needs cases. That should be emerging
pretty soon because increasingly there are more students with special needs that
are in the mainstream autistic, dyslexic cases and all that. There are more so
now and we have to handle that. And as a result of their handicap, they do get
picked on and get bullied.
This is an astute observation by P4, because, coincidentally, at the time of writing,

there was a case in Queensland, where a group of teenagers (two girls and two boys)
were found guilty of gang bashing a 15-year-old muscular dystrophy sufferer, who was
accused of staring at one of the girls. One of the older boys even made the victim eat
faeces. The group of teenagers were subsequently caught and punished according to
the Juvenile Justice Act (1992) (Gregory, 2007).
290
There seemed to be consensus that the major areas of concern for then and the near
future were the safety of students (this involves supervision and the law of
negligence), behaviour management and the sexual misconduct of teachers. This
takes us to the next research question: that of determining what the current status of
legal responsibility is for school leaders.
7.9
What is the current status of legal responsibility in Singapore schools and to what
extent is the position changing in the perception of experts, senior educators
and administrators?
The participants were asked what they understood about legal responsibility and
what their legal duty was towards their stakeholders. Not surprisingly, all the
participants were of the view that, first and foremost, they had a legal duty to
ensure the safety of their students.
However, the definition of safety differed among the participants. To some, it was
the physical safety, meaning having a safe environment:
P1: First and foremost, I think it is my duty to ensure that I have put structures
and systems in place. To ensure the best I can kids safety because safety is life
you know, it is more important than PSLE (Primary School Leaving Examination).
P2: Providing him with a safe environment.
P5: Its a conscious effort, the safety of students come firstwhen I walk
around, I definitely make sure there is a teacher in the classlooking at the
physical features, see whether its potential hazards or not
P9: Its very simple. My students come firstwe must ensure things like their
safety.
291
P10: Theres a basic accountability for several things like safety, the well-being
of the student.
To others, safety also meant the well-being of the student and the well-being of
students might include emotional and psychological safety, in addition to physical
safety:
P3: The thing that came out very loudly for students legal responsibility, I think
is the duty of care and safety. Care in all sense of the word holistically lah,
physically, psychologically, emotionally, socially and all that stuff.
P6: I think I know my legal responsibility as the principal, which is the guardian
of the students while they are in school, physically. I mean Im responsible for
looking after their safety issues, and I mean safety issues, and of course it also
means safety from like you know, emotion things like molest, and all that, lah,
from my teachers, things that are within my control, lah, that occurs within
school.
P7: Legal responsibility in the sense that as long as they are in school, well
ensure that the child is given a safe environment environment where they can
be free from physical danger, moral danger, emotional danger also
lahEmotional danger if not careful can lead to suicide.
To P3, P6 and P7,there was a legal duty to ensure safety holistically. P6 even alluded
to a duty to protect students from sexual abuse. A few other participants extended
this duty to identifying child or sexual abuse, whether by caregivers at home or by
teachers:
P2: Ensuring hes not abused, yah, or taken advantage ofthese days young
children, with more and more working parents, they put young children with
caregivers, yah, erI think they are more umsusceptible to some kind of abuse,
and we should be mindful of that.
292
P4: No one can pan handle a childthe legal duty to protect the child against
abuses.
P8: In school, I have to look out for children who are abused, and inform the due
authorities.
It is interesting that these three participants made reference to reporting child abuse
as if there was a legal duty to do so. Under section 87 of the Children and Young
Persons Act (Cap. 38, 1993), a person who knows or has reason to suspect that a child
is in need of care or protection MAY report the facts or suspicious circumstances to
the proper authorities. There is no mandatory reporting requirement imposed on
educators in Singapore, but abused children in Singapore would obviously be in a
much better position if all educators were take to the same view as these
participants.
Four participants felt that the notion of legal duty to ensure that children are safe
should extend to teachers as well. They believed that there is a legal duty to look
after the welfare of teachers:
P3: And also for teachers, is also a duty of, umtowards the teacher, I think, I
think safety of course I think with any human being, but duty of care in the
sense that umyou know, ummaking sure that they, they get the best working
environment.
P7: Its all our responsibility, as CEO of school, to make sure that place is
safeeven for teachers.
P8: Umfor me as a school leader, one of the things is to also protect the rights
of my teachers lah. For e.g. if the teacher is going to be subject to any abuse by
the parent because of perceived er, you know, injustices that have been
committed by the teacher against the child. That is a concern, lah We have our
rights too. Doesnt mean we are customer friendly and we have to bend
293
backwards all the time. If parents were to hurl expletives at you, then you have
to tell us.
P9: For me its very simple. My student must come first, alright, and then my
teachers, my staffwhatever thing that happens in the school, we must ensure
things like safety, their safety.
In an environment where attention is given mainly to the rights and safety of

children, it was interesting to note some principals placing a legal responsibility on
themselves to look after the welfare of teachers. In a changing society, where
parents are becoming more knowledgeable and vocal about their childrens rights,
P8s comment highlights the need to protect teachers against unreasonable demands.
The final area of legal responsibility was that of providing the right environment and
support for educating the child. This is presumably the starting point for any school.
But how has the notion of legal responsibility changed over the years in the
perception of the participants? The statement of P6 succinctly sums it up overall:
P6: Day 1, teachers no such thing as legal issue. Never know about it. In the
80s, what legal issues? Just do lah, and nobody sues.
This statement suggests that, in the past, the concept of legal responsibility did
not exist, or even if it did, it was thought that the Ministry of Education (MOE)
would handle the legal issues that arose:
P8: In the past, this notion of legal responsibility never crossed our minds.
P9: I think the climate has changed, lah. Its no longer, everything you refer to
MOE.
There are two reasons for this change. All agreed that the profile of contemporary
parents has changed:
P1: Parents seem to be more vocal, and they seem to make reference to whats
in the media
294
P2: Parents are certainly a lot more educated than they used to be, and
therefore somehow a lot more demanding and their expectations are a lot more
highermany of them have one or two, one child or two children
P3: Parents profileeither they are in the legal profession or they are very
much more highly qualified tototo know such legal matters, thats why they
are more forthcoming. Even where the profile is slightly different, erI still get
ersome responses along that lineyou know, legal seems to be the
immediate threat, lah, Ill sue you that kind of thing,that seems to be the
favourite tag-line for somebody tototo want to make their point.
P4: The parents being more, more knowledgeablethey know they can always go
up to the Ministry, they can go up to the newspaper, they can go up to
whatever, so if we are unreasonable, NO WAY (emphasis by P4) can we stand
tall.
P5: One obvious change is that, I will say that now, more parents are educated
in terms of their level of education. In the past, you may have parents who are P
sixes, but now you will have parents probably getting a diploma, or even JCs,
you know, and some even universities. So, if parents areare more and more
literate, they will read into issues concerning education.
P6: I can see the profile of my school change in the 5 years Ive been here. So as
a result, I think they are more, better educated, and they are aware of their
rights, and they know what they can doI think the expectations of society has
(sic) changed. Society includes parents, public, people who write letters,
neighbours, and even some students influenced by that.
P7: People are better educated, know their rights. Dont forget, the whole
population of Singapore, the level of education has gone upknowledge,
knowing about the legal dimension.
P8: increasingly we have parents that are better educated and I think my guess
is that they will understand and know their legal rights better.
295
P9: Even parents who are not well educated, they know certain rights, like for
example if a child is hurt by another child, they can come here and say that I
demand to know why.
P10: I think Singapore, with the population becoming more educated, more
affluent, I think its a natural thing that parents know more and therefore
expect more and WILL (emphasis by P10)take legal positions if they view that
their concerns are not addressed.
The second reason for the change is the move by the Ministry of Education to give
school leaders more autonomy in decision-making. As a result, school leaders have a
higher level of accountability and have to deal with an increasing range of issues,
including legal issues. For example:
P1: In the past, MOE handles legal issues but nowadays, we have to do more, we
have to be more engaged in the whole procedure.
P2: I think a school principal cannot operate by all the time taking refuge under
the MOE HQ and saying you know, Can you deal with it?I think we should be
accountable for our actions.
P3: I think definitely it has changed to somewhat more needful for us to be
aware of legal issues. UmI think usually, the awareness comes in as a form of
explosion, when we are hit in the face, then we have no choice but to go and
deal with itsometimes, theres no clear support outright, straight away, from
the MOE
P4: Principals must take on the responsibilitythere are a lot of policies that
come down from the Ministryso it becomes a duty for us to make sure that we
keep in touch, were informed
P7: We have to be kept undated, very oftenbecause events change, context
change. We should learn from case studies how to respond to it if something
happens
296
P9: I think MOE has given us a certain degree of autonomyYou actually have to
make good judgment and decisions at your level, what you need to do, because
some things you have to react very fast.
The conclusion one can draw from the above is that the position with regard to
education has changed. Schools need to be prepared to meet challenges, complaints,
or feedback from their stakeholders, and work within boundaries of what is
acceptable to these stakeholders. In addition, school leaders must possess social skills
like EQ and HR skills to manage increasing demands. For educators, teaching is not
just teaching any more. Educators responsibilities may well encompass legal
responsibility too. For example, a generation ago, there was spanking and smacking.
Now, although it is provided for in legislation, it is something that teachers are not
permitted to do. Thus, in light of societal changes and in a new environment where
parents, teachers and members of the public generally are more vocal and infinitely
more demanding, one would argue that there is a need for educators to be
knowledgeable about their legal responsibilities. This issue is explored in more detail
below.
7.10
What areas of law are principals involved with in the schools in Singapore, and to
what extent are principals knowledgeable about their legal responsibilities in
relation to those areas of law?
The areas of law the principals were involved with were established from the short
questionnaire administered prior to the interviews, and probing questions were
used to elicit additional information and more complete stories from the participants
during the interviews.
297
The participants, collectively, experienced a wide range of legal issues. The areas of
law discussed in Chapter Five are first looked at. The most common area of law
encountered by the participants was that of supervision and student injuries, or the
allegation of negligence by the school, thereby causing injury. The usual incidents
involved injury or fights during recess or in class, falling on wet ground, and injury
during sports or PE lessons. Below are some examples of the comments:
P1: Teacher was accused of not alerting children to be careful with glasses
before every activity.
P4: Two girls within the same class involved in a scuffle. Girl A, Girl B. A and B
go into a scuffle, then what happened is that A got very offended and demanded
an apology from B. B refused and then As parents came into the picture. They
also demanded it, and B refused. Her parents also came into the picture. Bs
parents were saying that We are not going to apologise because my daughter
didnt start it, so if the father want to make the matter big, we are prepared to
make the matter big. Im prepared to put down $500,000 for the legal case.
P6: she slipped and fellso the allegation was anyone pushed her?
P7: A pupil was injured during PE lesson. He hurt his head and his parents
threatened to sue the teacher.
It is interesting to note that amongst the incidents of injury, schools were beginning
to experience cases of special needs children causing physical injury to their
classmates. Three participants shared their experiences when a child was hurt by a
special needs child:
P6: Why did you put my child against that stupid child when you know hes like
that, like that, like that?
P8: There is a case of a child with special needs, whowhowho hit another
child. And that other girl, I dont know why, this boy was not a strong boy or
anything and she had a concussion and was hospitalised for 2 or three days, yah.
298
And the parents of this child, one parent was a teacher as well, and they did not
really kick up a fuss or threaten any legal action.
P9: We have special needs children who can be very aggressive, and they hurt
others too. They hurt, they hurt a lot. They not only hurt students, they hurt
even teachers, alright. They bite, they pinch. Thats what I heard from some
people but I have cases in my school where my teacher even get boxed by these
children.
Another interesting deviation from the usual negligence claim was the story told by
P6 where the school was accused of indirectly causing a students suicide:
P6: There was a case where a girl committed suicide last year. They claim that
we were involved because we did not call the parents. Last year, a sec 3 girl left
school early, although she was supposed to stay late, and she jumped. In fact,
they had to contact the school because they couldnt verify her identity. We
were very shocked when we found out Basically, we were investigating a few
handphone theft cases. The kids came to report that the handphone was stolen,
lah. So we have to like investigate, right, because it was stolen in schoolthe
person who lost it, came to us with the words I found my handphone in
another girls bag, in the now deceased childs bag. Lah because the girl found
out and reported to us, the deceased was very frightened. The next day when
she came, she confessed to my OM, the discipline mistress, that she took, but
she pleaded with us not to tell her parents. This is quite normal behaviour. I
think I have not come across a child who says, you tell lor. I dont care. I mean,
not in my experience hereIt was a lapse on our part, lah. We didnt think it was
unusual. She didnt cry or anything. She didnt like break downBasically the
mother has threatened time and time again, that if she was ever caught stealing
again, she will send her to a girls home. That is like etched in the girls mind.
Because we have heard that many times before, If you do anything naughty, we
will send you to a girls home, or we dont want you, in some way or other, lah.
So my OM didnt think much of it because we heard it beforeshe wanted to
299
know whether her parents needed to know. And we said,Yes lor. Eventually,
but it doesnt have to be now. We were quite clear, in fact we never called the
parents. That was the point of issue, quite ironic. I mean in our books its quite
common, I mean, slowly lah, we will get to it by and by. Theres no need to
raise hell and fire over something like that. We will settle it in good time. So we
told her, Dont worry, but eventually we will have to tell your parents. And we
actually used this phrase, which may be a problem, that eventually we will
tell. I mean if you wish, you may tell your parents first. Its not that its a
secret. We will get to it by and by. If you dont tell, we will eventually inform
your parents lor. Anyway, the girl was quiet but did tell the OM, Please dont
tell my parents. That happened in the morning, mid morning, and we let her go
back to class. That was our error, lah. We didnt know, there was no
melodramatic, screamed, cried, so we were lulled into complacency. Cool, cool,
nothing happened. She was supposed to report to the OM before she left school
but she never did.
Firstly, the parents thought that we were accusing their daughter wrongly
because their daughter cannot possibly steal a handphone because shes got a
handphone at home, blah, blah, blah. Thats why she had to go and jump. That
was the first conclusion the parents drew, especially the mother. The second
one was that, if you had known, you should have called me. How can you hide
this thing from me? Because I would have come and stopped her from doing
anything stupid, you see? So why didnt we call her? Negligence, lor! Her main
thing is, why did you wait? Because if you had found out at 12 oclock, you
should have called me instantly, I would have instantly rushed down.
Teachers, of course, are not psychologists and thus cannot be expected to be able to
identify students with suicidal tendencies. However, there are still useful lessons to
learn from P6s story and from similar cases heard in the US. In Wyke v. Polk County
School Board (1997), a 13 year old male student attempted suicide twice at school
300
before successfully hanging himself at home. Two administrators in the school were
aware of the incidents, even spoke to the student about the incidents, yet failed to
secure any kind of help for him or to notify the parents of the two attempts. The
court held that when a child attempts suicide at school and the school knows of the
attempt, the school can be found negligent in failing to notify the childs parents or
guardians (p. 569).
In other instances, where a teacher is informed of a suicidal statement and fails to

act on it, the teacher may have arguably breached his or her duty of care by not
warning the principal, guidance officer or parents. It is very possible that one of
these groups of people could have intervened if they had been aware of the suicidal
thoughts.
The next area of law experienced by the participants was that of corporal
punishment resulting in either physical injury or emotional injury. Some incidents of
such punishment were described earlier in this chapter, so only a few examples will
be revisited:
P1: Parents complained that the teacher knocked the students head.
P3: Complaints from parentsfor example, why is the child slapped? Why is the
child hit? Sometimes, very strange form of punishment where the teacher
actually use rubber band to snap the childs wrist as a form of discipline.
P5: Slapping students.
P9: The child is naughty and the teacher just take the water bottle and hit him
on his head. I just got this case this morning. Anything that cause (sic) grievous
hurt to a child is corporal punishment, so if the parent comes and say that my
childs head is painful and that its hurt
301
Corporal punishment that may potentially cause emotional injury is an area that
educators should also be careful about:
P8: And increasingly now, teachers are also aware that they cannot even
verbally abuse the child because parents know their rights, and parents will
come back to the principal when their child has been verbally abused. Last year
alone, I have about two to three complaints where teachers allegedly calling
their pupils monkey, or some names, so parents are aware and so I think eh, I
mean for my school, one of the core values is respect and really this translates
all the way from principals to staff to school attendants to students.
P8 went on to say that teachers must recognise that students should be treated with
respect:
P8: Teachers are strange people you know, they somehow have this angst in
them, you know like when you have a maid, you have this feeling of authority.
So I told them take that out. Go to class and treat the child with respect.
Another area of involvement was that of educational malpractice or professional

negligence. As seen earlier in this chapter, complaints about poor teaching usually
relate to a poor standard of English, inadequate preparation for assessments and
examinations, and the use of relief teachers or trainee teachers. Parents also
complain when a teacher is often absent or when a class changes teachers
frequently. Although it was generally felt that there is no need to be unduly worried
about this area of law, P1 and P10 raised an interesting question: contrary to poor
teaching, will teachers enthusiasm in helping students achieve high grades cause
students to become depressed or suffer from emotional stress?
P1: Childrens stress, that we are unreasonable in our expectations of the kinds
of things that our children can do and should doyou will hear my primary 6
parents, you know, not many, but some, will say that this teacher has been
doing remedial everyday, has been calling back my child on a Saturday morning
to prepare for the PSLE (Primary School Leaving Examination), so for every
302
parent who sounds like that, there will be 39 other parents who will like what
the teacher is doing, but you see, you will never hear this 5 years ago, you know,
but now you will hear this, parent who will say that, Oh, its ok, I dont want
my child to be in EM1104, you know, I dont want to stress him out. Just let him
be.
So my point to my teachers would be, we must be conscious about tiring them

physically, so, the nature of activity, stress, concentration level, all those.
Professionally, we know the child cannot concentrate for more than 10 minutes
or so. So we apply it and therefore not get ourselves into trouble.
P10: I think weve got to be very careful that we dont over market what we can
doIts one thing to aim high and to aspire for good things and all that for our
students but I think we also got to be grounded in some reality as to the kind of
profile that we are attracting to our schoolsif many of your students are
coming with very ererlow PSLE scores, I mean for them to go to JCs (Junior
Colleges) and then university, you put added pressure on such students, which
may be unnecessary.
I think its always good to hope for the best for the students, aim high and
expect them to achieve a certain level, and beyond if they are capable, but I
think weve got to tamper with some reality also.
Education is seen as a significant economy driver in Singapore due to the lack of

natural resources. As a consequence, students are put through considerable pressure
to excel in schools. This explains the teacher induced stress that P1 and P10
104
Students sit for a common test when they are in primary 4 and from the results, they are streamed
into EM1, EM2 and EM3, EM1 being the elite group of students. Due to the stigma attached to EM3
students, this system was highly criticised and in 2004, the distinction between EM1 and EM2 streams
was removed, and EM3 students were integrated with other students in their non-academic subjects.
From 2008, streaming in primary schools will be scrapped and replaced by subject-based banding. Under
this system, weaker students can take a combination of foundation and standard courses, depending on
what they are good at (Primary School, 2006).
303
referred to and perhaps highlights an aspect of educational malpractice that is

possibly unique to Singapore.
Some other areas of law that the participants are involved with are sexual
misconduct of teachers or staff, suspension, expulsion and bullying. Examples of the
participants involvement have been discussed earlier in this chapter and there is
nothing significantly different to add here.
There are several other areas of law that the participants had to deal with that were
not discussed in Chapter Five. The most cited one was the law of contract, followed
by intellectual property. Other legal issues experienced by the participants were the
law of defamation, family law (custody issues), assaults on teachers and teachers
suing principals for victimisation or unfair evaluations. Most schools have a range of
legal issues that school leaders have to deal with on a daily basis and it is not the
intention of this study to attempt to cover them all. The question here is: having
identified the legal issues, to what extent are school leaders knowledgeable about
their legal responsibilities in relation to those areas of law?
Of the ten participants, only P6 claimed to be knowledgeable about legal issues and
legal responsibilities. The reasons for this were her experience overseas and her
experience with many incidents of actual or threatened law suits:
P6: my knowledge I think is quite high as a principal because of my own
brushes with the law. I learnt the hard wayMy experience overseas helped me
gain a lot of knowledgeI did my NIE in London I saw a few cases myself. But I
did my Masters in Harvard, and Im aware of that. This was beginning to surface
already, the legal issues. I asked a principal. It was not a course I attended, but
when I went to shadow a principal in Harvard
304
P6 cited several examples of her brushes with the law. Amongst them were
threatened legal actions for breach of contract, negligence and defamation. P6 was
also personally sued by a teacher for unfair treatment. The conversation with P6
revealed that the respondent had a good understanding of legal issues and
responsibilities, and expressed her concern about teachers lack of understanding of
where their legal duties lie:
P6: Teachers themselves have grey idea about where our responsibilities end
are you sure its not our problem when a child gets into trouble outside? I
mean cases like when they get involved in fights outside whose problem is it?
Its clearly not mine you know, but it is a student of mine so I am emotionally
involved, as in you know, the non physical aspects, we will have to help, but we
dont, unless its a school sanctioned excursion lah, as I said. I cannot be
responsible for the child. Im very clear about that and my teachers sometimes
find me a bit cold. It doesnt happen in school, so how does it concern us?
Apart from P6, who appeared to be confident of her knowledge, the other
participants indicated comparatively little confidence. In many cases, the knowledge
they gained came from real life experiences:
P3: I had one legal case where they expect me to settle a custody issue They
want the school to not to allow the father to access the child and all that stuff
because they are going through custody issue and all that with this incident, I
also learnt a lot more about legal terms. The mother is only given full custody
through umdecree..nee..si, so only after which III seek advice from the
superintendent as well as the Head of legal service MOE, that we should not get
involved because as long as we dont have a Court Order officially from the
court, we cannot take sides lah, although they are in the proceeding to settle all
the auxillary (sic). I didnt know all these things.
P8: For example, if the teachers didnt perform well and has got a grade that is
below expectations. Now there is performance bonus where if they have a C
305
grade which is better, or a D grade which is meeting requirements. So some

teachers may resort to some legal recourse, you know, frankly, I had such a
case last yearI was wondering what legal recourse the teacher had because
technically, she had a D grade, she was meeting expectations. So, she
challenged the grade. She said that, Oh, she did better than that and she
wanted, of course, shes been told and all that, but she still challenged it. I was
wondering does she have any legal recourse technically or not. Can she do
something legally to probably put right the situation?...Im not sure, until now I
dont know because she has asked for a transfer. She has gone to another school.
Im not so sure, Im still waiting, lah, to see what hits me.
The participants were then asked if they thought school principals should have a
knowledge of education law. The answer was a unanimous yes, but the reasons
differed, as displayed in Table 7.11 below.
TABLE 7.11
Research Question 5
P
1
Statements about why principals need to have knowledge about legal issues
There is a need for principals to have knowledge of areas of law that affect
principalshipSo that they can make better, more informed decisions, and that they
will not be necessarily stressed by ahall this, and they can go back to the core
business of developing children, morally, socially, whatever, whatever. So they will
not be unnecessarily stressed.
If I expect students to learn to grow up to be responsible individuals who are

accountable for their actions, then as school leaders, I think we also should be
accountable for our actions, yah. You cannot do something and then say, let the
Ministry of Education to deal with it.
I think I would like to know more, you know, umso that III really will be better
able to cope lah, with some of the things. And why? I think, umwhether there is
going to be an increasing trend of threat or not, I think it makes the educationist
more holisticIt helps me as a person too, it helps me as a citizen of the country
too, its not just my job per se. I see it as a holistic development because whether I
know it or not, I got to face all these challenges or threats and all that. I cant say
306
because I dont know the law, therefore theyve got to excuse me. I cant say that to
the parents or to any potential, rising threat. But I see mymy role, you know, eras
a more purposeful or a more maturing one and therefore when I value add to the
system at large, I dont want to know the law to serve a possible threat. I think
IIIIm not worried about that, yah. So I think its good lah, for us to be holistic.
4
Yes, like what you shared with us at the last seminar, that was extremely useful. We
are able to see definitions of law which we never knew of before. This is because of
what I said earlier, parents are becoming more knowledgeable, more vocal, media
etc.
I think it is a need, although you may not be using it lets say, every week or every
month, you know, but when you encounter cases, alright, then it will be good. That
is number One. Number 2 to be more proactive, after you know all this thing,
whatever policy you discuss with your teachers and you draw up, it will be helpful,
because you have the first hand knowledge of some legal matters, and then you
draft the policy, then your policy will take into consideration all this thing you see.
So that itself, I think its a proactive approach, its a good approach.
Yes, so that they will not be so frightened, lor. I think, knowledge is powerful,
because you will not be threatened, lah. I mean like baseless cases, your intellect,
you know, will tell you its rubbish but you better make sure, right, because Im not
sure about the law, the law need not be intellectual, some of it is like, not, not
logical sounding, so you need to know.
Yes, definitely, definitely and they have to be kept updated, very often. Not only
knowledge, they have to continue to update themselves. Because events change,
context change Because people are better educated, know their rightsWe should
learn from case studies. How to respond to it if something happens. For e.g. if
someone kill himself, in what circumstances. For e.g. if a kid slips off school, during
recess time in a neighbourhood, and system not in place where children not
supposed to leave school during school hours. What happened if child goes some
other block and jump Knowledge, knowing about the legal dimension.
Definitely. For the reasons I mentioned earlier e.g. parents are more educated, they
are reading things given out to them. And also, it is good for you to be aware
because you can respond appropriately, when you have a conversation with a parent
or whoever, you know. I mean, it could be legal issues with regard to teachers even.
If you do things just like that without knowing, having any background knowledge of
the consequences, then you will end up in hot soup (laughter). So it is really
essential that you know something, have some background knowledge of the law.
10
I dont believe we all need to be experts in the law. We need to know enough to
make good decisions, to understand, to undergird the kind of decisions that we
makebasic knowledge will be necessary.
307
In Table 7.2, it was noted that all the participants saw an increased in the influence
of law on school policies, and that legal matters caused more stress than they had in
previous years. The question leading to the statements in Table 7.11 was thus an
extra question that tested the reliability of the participants response in Table 7.2.
Indeed, one of the reasons for having a knowledge of legal matters, as seen from the
statements in Table 7.11, is that such knowledge may help principals to make
judicious decisions, and that in turn may prevent unnecessary stress amongst
educators:
P3: Any legal issues, unique incidents, I will make sure I communicate to the
staff very quickly, so that they dont learn the hard way, and be stressed out on
the ground. Even if they take time to come and ask the principal, I think they
shouldnt be put in a difficult position and be scolded by parents and all that.
They dont deserve that. I think at the teacher level, they shouldnt, lah, be
bombarded. So we tell each other some of the bottom lines, lah. Even though
they cant handle the case, they will not be emotionally stressed out. Sometimes
the thing is, they take overnight to tell me some of the things because they may
not have seen me and all that stuff. Not fair lah, to the teacher, to put them
through, undue stress.
P3 was implying that principals should be equipped with the necessary knowledge to
deal effectively with legal issues and to filter that knowledge to the staff so that
teachers need not be distracted from the important job of teaching.
In addition, a knowledge of legal issues, in the view of P6, puts educators in a

stronger position when confronted by problems that could have legal consequences:
P6: They should not be threatened with ignorance, lor. I mean ignorance is
something, Yah, yah, he can really sue me, but its rubbish, he cannot sue
you, he has no case!
308
A knowledge of legal issues can thus boost principals confidence in handling

incidents, but P5 and P10 highlighted that it is also useful for supporting decisions
and drafting policies:
P5: Because sometimes if you dont know or dont have knowledge of this and
you go and craft a policy which actually impact these legal things, you dont
know. Its better to have a good knowledge of it before you draft your policies,
right?
P10: I dont believe we all need to be experts in the law. We need to know
enough to make good decisions, to understand, to undergird the kind of decisions
that we makebasic knowledge will be necessarybut, law being so technical,
you would need advice about certain positionings. If not advice, then some
reassurance, so when I have a new issue, I will always refer to counsel.
Two other reasons for gaining a knowledge of education law emerged from the
statements. First, parents are more knowledgeable and vocal about educational
issues, so principals should be equipped with at least an equivalent level of
knowledge. There is no excuse for being ignorant about the law:
P8: The parents will say, If you dont deal with this matter, I will report to the
MOE, I will go the media.I guess I realise that I have to know the law a bit
more. Thats why I always fall back on this friend of mine who is a lawyer so if
there is anything that I feel that there are any legal implicationsBasically, I
have to check with people who know the law to see whether I am on the right
side of the law and what my rights are.
Second, there is an accountability issue. As suggested by P1, it is not only limiting to

make decisions concerning legal matters without any background knowledge, it is
also potentially dangerous where childrens lives are concerned:
P1: See, it is very limiting you know, to not know things, and its very dangerous
to not know things and yet go with, aiyah, do first and then you know, apologise
later. Where childrens lives are concerned, you cant. Sometimes, there is no
309
turning back to what you can do to the children in school. No apologies will be
enough.
Thus, as aptly put by P2 and P9:

P2: as school leaders, I think we also should be accountable for our actions.
P9: So it is really essential that you know something, have some background
knowledge of the law.
7.11
Research Questions 6 and 7:
Question 6: How might schools develop risk management systems to cope with
significant care issues?
Question 7: What forms of support need to be given to principals and those in
managerial positions to prepare them for the legal requirements of their
professional roles, to ensure that they are conversant with important legal issues,
can apply principles in the workplace that are robust and resistant to challenge,
and what shape should those support strategies take?
The answers to research question 6 are discussed in Chapter Eight. A methodological

approach that has been rarely used in Singapore was employed to ascertain the
answers to this question. Research question 7 is discussed in Chapter Nine when
considering the implications for this study.
7.12
Conclusion
The answers to research questions 1 to 5 indeed show the effect of globalisation and
the emerging importance of areas of law in the education sector. An extra question
was thus posed to the participants to ascertain the impact of all this on school
leadership. Not surprisingly, there is consensus that principals now need to be more
informed or educated about legal issues and more skilful in managing parents. For
example:
310
P3: I think the level of awareness or the kind of interaction on legal matters is
definitely on the rise lah, yah. I think it is needful lah, especially for principals,
even if we cant cascade it down to the general staff level yet, principals should
be the first group of people thatthatshould be inducted with more umbite
size kind of understanding, so that we will be making even more informed
decisions, yah, for the setting as a whole.
P8: I guess I realise that I have to know the law a bit more.
P9: Knowledge about law, alright, and erwhat are the pitfalls, alright, or
consequences of certain actions that we didnt do properly, that will be very
useful, I would say, to prevent incidents from happening. Im all for the law, you
know. I feel that knowledge about the law is necessary and I would take positive
steps to make myself more knowledgeable.
P4: you need to have the skills to be able to engage with the stakeholders in a
meaningful and effective way.
P7: I have been running schools for 20 years, I manage themanage theyou
see, legal issues will only come along only if you do not know how to talk to
people, how to manage situations, huh. The Chinese saying huh, small matters
can be a big issue if you manage the wrong way, you know.
One way to manage parents and students, it was felt, was to constantly obtain
feedback:
P5: You have to get feedback from them. You cannot run the school, you know,
without getting feedback from them, without even sensing what they want and
what they dont want, then you will have a lot of problems you see, sometimes
good ideas can come from them, you know.
P10: Ive got to spend a lot of time discussing things from management all the
way to the students and the parents because people need to know why you need
to do it this way or that wayso youve got to keep responding, explaining why
you make some decisions, so that people at least understand that they are heard
311
and if theres a no, they know why, at least from the management point of
view. So there is a lot of engagement involved, very tiring process at times.
Unlike previous times, the participants now find themselves more alert to incidents
that could lead to legal situations. Below are several examples of what they said:
P1: I probably will becomeas a result of this, will become more alert at making
notes of, you know, ah, legal implications. When we read in media, when we
listen to other cases being talked about, we probably make a more conscious
effort, you know, of learning the implication and learning what is the most
appropriate thing to do.
P6: Now when I read the newspaper, I will pay attention to these issues, you
know, I mean, its like the red flag, lah. I read it and say, oh, legal issue, does it
impact me, you know? Im more alert and I try to pick up learning points to share
with my teachers lor. Sometimes when I see my teachers doing something like
that, I warn them, like danger zone dont ever do this. Im more vigilant.
With the increase in incidences of legal issues in schools, school leadership is

arguably becoming more challenging for and demanding on school leaders:
P3: If there is a new case, I dont see it as a stress, I welcome it as a challenge.
P2: Makes it (principalship) a lot more challenging and interesting for sure.
Cases being challenging and interesting will not provide skills needed to deal with
them. There is a need for professional knowledge, involving sufficient understanding
of the law so as to enable school leaders to practise preventive law management
strategies.
In the next chapter, the findings of the Q methodology study are presented. The
chapter addresses the question of how school leaders might deal effectively with
legal issues and develop legal risk strategies to strengthen their professional roles.
312
CHAPTER EIGHT
Q METHODOLOGY: DETERMINING STRATEGIES TO AVOID LEGAL RISKS105
8.1
Introduction
The interviews with school principals revealed a general level of agreement amongst
them that the law is indeed relevant to their work. Yet, there appear to be different
perspectives amongst educators regarding what should be done if anything to
avoid unwanted encounters with legal issues and to ensure that schools can
concentrate on their core activity of schooling without unfortunate distractions.
This chapter reports an exploratory study that used a research approach unfamiliar
to some research audiences and previously little used in Singapore - Q Methodology to make sense of these diverse perspectives by examining the nature and complexity
of the opinions themselves (as opposed to the people who held them.) By gaining
deeper insights into the points of view, the information may be used by policy
makers to, first, understand where senior personnel in education are coming from in
terms of their views about what schools, the Ministry and others should be doing to
avert legal risk; and, second, formulate strategies that will enable these educators to
gain a clearer understanding of how they might deal effectively with legal issues and
develop legal risk strategies. The study provides a methodological advance in
understanding the complexity of different perspectives, and may be useful to other
systems and contexts when considering how to address the development of
educators ability to manage legal issues.
Singapore became independent in 1965, and since then, education has played a
crucial role in the development of the human resource of the country. However, as
105
The findings of this project were presented in the Australia and New Zealand Education Law
Association 13th Annual Conference: Innovation and Internationalisation: pushing the boundaries of
education law, (22-24 September 2004) and published in the conference proceedings.
313
seen in the earlier chapters, education was made compulsory in Singapore only in
2003, when the government enacted the Compulsory Education Act (Cap. 51). The
education system in Singapore now provides six years of compulsory primary
education, and four or five years of non-compulsory secondary education for all
children. After secondary education, pupils progress to pre-university colleges,
polytechnics or vocational educational institutes, or straight into the workforce.
A few years ago, eyebrows would have been raised at the mention of law in the
school context. The view has generally been that schools will never face litigation in
the courts, because Singaporeans are apathetic and will not fight for their cause. But
as can be seen from the discussion in earlier chapters, this is no longer true, as
Singaporeans are now more prepared to express their concerns openly and critically,
and schooling issues feature prominently106.
Data in Chapters Six and Seven suggests that the proliferation of legal issues
impacting schools is a growing concern for the administration and management of
Singapore schools. Principals not only find themselves dealing with more and more
specialist concerns, such as negligence in relation to the safety of children and
financial, contractual and family matters, but they also find that increasingly higher
levels of accountability are being demanded of them. This may be due partly to
societys changing expectations and partly to the Ministry of Educations move
towards granting greater autonomy (decision-making powers) and responsibility to
the schools and, therefore, the principals.
If legal issues are expanding in schools, then, what are the best strategies for coping
with them and what are the responsibilities involved? In understanding what are
106
See Chapters One, Three and Seven
314
perceived to be the optimum strategies, we needed to go beyond the simplistic

aggregation of responses to items, and into territory that would throw more focussed
light on the strategies themselves and the complex ways in which they were
assembled.
8.2
Methodological Approach
The methodological approach Q methodology is described in more detail in

Chapter Two of this study but a brief review is included here to lead the reader to
facilitate an understanding of the data and analysis.
8.2.1 A priori or a posteriori?

In most research studies, the researcher observes, describes, counts and charts, and
then arrives at interpretations and conclusions in the light of prior understanding and
knowledge. However, responses to questions and scales have meanings that may be
different from those of the observer. As pointed out by Stainton Rogers (1991, p. 9),
when an individual marks an item on an attitude scale, they are not expressing
their opinion (i.e. making explicit a single implicit and enduring essence), rather
they are selecting one from a range of contradictory attitudes. They are choosing
which one to express at a particular moment. Q methodology thus employs
investigative approaches that enable the subject to provide the explanation of the
issue or phenomenon, and to engage his or her own measurements and observations.
The approach relies on gathering information and then applying concepts to it, rather
than trying to locate data in predetermined concepts and theories. The researcher
did not start with any prior definitions or attempt to make any prior inferences. All
the participants in the investigation counted and their responses formed the
researchers understanding of the issue. From this perspective, the researcher had to
expect the unexpected and accept new explanations of the relevance of law to
315
school leaders and their preferred strategies to avoid legal risk ones which may
never be considered.
The researcher started off by setting up the situation in such a way that subjects
were able to say what they wanted to say, and then the researcher hoped to discover
something about what they meant. As Q methodology is designed to investigate the
individuals subjectivity, the researcher asked the individual to construct a model of
his or her subjective preferences about the issue of law and legal risk in schools. The
way in which individuals placed statements in relation to one another revealed the
relative subjective importance attached to their perceptions. Meaning was then
drawn from the way in which the Q-sort was completed.
8.2.2 Generalisability
The concern in Q methodology is to sample adequately the range of opinion,
perception, view, preference and so forth about a particular issue. In this study, the
statements were a sample of opinions about what should be done to help schools
avoid issues that might give rise to legal concern or action. The researcher was not
concerned about the relationship between a sample of people and the population
of which they were a representative part. Rather, the concern was with the model of
opinion (or perceptions) that typified people who related to it statistically. Such a
model is expressed, through a process of factor analysis, as a factor, and the factor is
best described by Brown (1980) as a generalised abstraction of a particular outlook or
value orientation. Thus, people who load highly on, say, Factor A may be generalised
as having similar models of opinion.
316
Factors, in this methodology, can be described as clusters of persons who rank the
statements in approximately the same way. Thus, those who load highly on the same
factor may be deemed to have a commonly shared perspective.
8.2.3 The issue

The researchers concern was with how educators in leadership positions mainly in
schools and the Ministry of Education (MOE) understood the law having an impact
on their work and the best strategies for averting legal risk.
8.2.3.1 Preparing and Administering the Q-sort

The gathering of statements - the concourse process - took several weeks, but
prior to the concourse, several months had been invested in reading the available
literature. In finalising a list of statements that could be used for the Q-sorts, the
researcher had to ensure that the statements covered a broad range of opinion about
the issue under investigation; and that the statements were clearly different one
from the other.
After the list of statements had been generated and reduced to manageable and
representative proportions, each statement was numbered randomly and put on a
separate piece of card (a Q-sort). The Q-sorts were then administered to each
participant. A total of 47 participants from primary and secondary government and
government-aided schools, junior colleges and the Ministry of Education took part in
the research.
8.2.3.2 Factor analysis and Interview

The scores from each participants grid were entered into the PQMethod software
programme, which carried out an inverted factor analysis of the data. The factors
317
that emerged from the analysis were the models of opinion (or proposed solutions)
about what should be done in or for schools to avoid legal challenge. Follow up
interviews were then conducted with the help of Accounts or storylines to
confirm or modify the understandings of the researcher, and clear up any anomalies
that were apparent.
8.2.4 The Accounts

As mentioned in Chapter Two, the writing of the final accounts is best described as a
craft rather than a science. Retaining the vitality of the original expression and
writing an integrated and coherent account is not easy, but by identifying four
distinctive factors from the factor analysis, the following accounts or stories
emerged. Each story is characterised by certain key themes, which the researcher
has used to suggest a title for the particular factor or point of view. Earlier it was
suggested that the factors are proposed solutions to the question: what should be
done to avoid legal difficulties in our schools?
8.2.4.1
Factor 1: The Training Solution
The best way of reducing exposure to legal risk in the school is to ensure people receive
adequate training. All appointment holders principal, vice-principal, heads of
department, senior teachers, discipline master, administration manager and others
should be trained in how to avoid legal risk, and NIE should include legal instruction in
both its leadership programmes and its pre-service programmes. However, it is of critical
importance that leaders are well trained, and principals, therefore, should be the first to
receive instruction. Teachers should also be trained to appreciate the correct course of
action in any given situation, and training in mediation skills should be given, because
increasing arguments amongst parents and teachers can lead to legal consequences. The
training process can be supported by events such as conferences, a Principals Forum, staff
meetings and student assemblies.
318
All these training strategies and events should be complemented by other effective
strategies, like giving advice to young teachers early in their careers, making sure teachers
and pupils are conversant with behaviour policies and disciplinary procedures, and the
principal giving constant reinforcement about the things teachers do that have legal
implications.
There is no point in wishing the good old days could return, because we are in a vastly
different environment now. Nor is it possible to look to the government or MOE to protect
us. Experience, however valuable, is no substitute for training, and we cannot rely on
familiarity with the Principals Handbook to sort out our legal issues. Rather, we should
provide the right training, spell out the correct procedures, and give staff the skill to
develop good relationships between students, parents and teachers.
8.2.4.2
Factor 2: The Guidelines and Leadership Solution
The optimal way of managing legal risk is by ensuring systems, processes and broad
guidelines are in place. Principals should spell out behaviour policies and disciplinary
procedures to teachers and pupils, and make them aware of the correct courses of action.
Principals should also constantly reinforce them, and should publish safe working
guidelines and inform all those involved about them, because more and more outsiders are
becoming involved in school life. Staff meetings and student assemblies to review safety
rules will also help, and the school should identify the particularly dangerous problem
areas, like P.E. facilities and workshops, and then monitor them closely. Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs) will help in averting risk, and schools should identify hazards
and assess the risk of accidents occurring. These assessments should then be carefully
documented.
The real key to running a relatively risk-free school is to have a strong principal, one
who will give clear instructions and ensure compliance. As well as having broad guidelines,
there should be some training, particularly for the leaders in the school (with principals
319
being the first to receive training) and NIE can help us in this training by including law in
its leadership programmes. The training should include mediation skills, because there is
increasing incidence of disputes amongst and between teachers and parents. Nurturing
good relationships, therefore, between students, teachers and parents will enable the
school to work things out before situations get out of hand.
Even if we work on the principle of keeping the childrens best interests at heart to guide
our actions and decisions, that is not going to help a great deal. We should not expect
protection from the government or the MOE. Similarly, the calibre of teachers and
teaching applicants is of little influence: with good strong leadership, though, and some
sensibly thought-out guidelines, schools should be able to both manage and possibly even
avoid legal risks.
8.4.2.3
Factor 3: The Relationships Solution
The key to managing legal risk lies in the quality of human relationships. Schools should,
for example, keep in regular contact with parents and keep them informed, and should
look after the welfare of teachers. Also, if educators keep the best interests of children at
heart, they will lessen the chances of legal risk. Some training too in mediation skills will
serve to enhance relationships.
Despite teachers making it clear to students what the expectations are, students
sometimes do not meet those expectations, so they may need to be reminded of the
consequences they face from time to time.
Some understanding of the law is useful and, indeed, principals should be the first to be
given such knowledge, but there is no need for large scale training, such as NIE training for
leaders and trainee teachers, and training for teachers and appointment holders (including
cluster-led training): these are not the most effective strategies. Supervision measures,
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and rules are useful defence mechanisms, only
when relationships fail, so they are not the best ways of avoiding legal risk. Strong leaders
320
can be suffocating if they simply issue directives, so they too are unlikely to be the best
solution.
The government might do more to protect teachers and schools from the consequences of
an increasingly litigious society, but in the end, the most effective strategies are those
that are designed to nurture good, meaningful and sustainable relationships
characterised by common sense and sensitivity - amongst parents, students and
professional educators.
8.2.4.4
Factor 4: The Blend or Rojak Solution
We have to implement a judicious blend of strategies to avert legal risk. Good

relationships between students and teachers, and regular contact with parents, combined
with a concern for the welfare of teachers, form a key platform for success in keeping
things under control. Relationships can be enhanced if educators have training in
mediation skills in order to cope well when things go wrong. An MOE conference or
Principals Forum would support the training strategy, and the key appointment holders
should be the main recipients of training in legal issues.
While schools can adopt a range of effective strategies, the government should play its
part by introducing legislation to prevent schools, teachers and principals from being sued,
as this would be a major source of support in reducing the fear generated by legal risks.
The MOE too has a significant role, for it can give clear advice and publish it, so that
schools have a ready source of reference. Better still, a Legal Helpdesk would be of great
help.
Other strategies include identifying the major accident hazards, the problem areas, like
PE facilities and workshop areas, and then monitoring them; and holding staff meetings
and student assemblies to review rules. This information can be reinforced by reminding
teachers of the major risk areas of school activity. One more strategy is to catch teachers
early in their careers and give them good advice about legal matters.
321
There is no way we can make the school a risk-free zone, and there is no point in letting
events reach the stage where we need to draw on the help of lawyer friends and alumni to
get us out of difficulty. The Principals Handbook is not the answer to avoiding legal risk,
and we cannot rely on our common sense, sensitivity and honesty, nor on our predilection
for the best interests of children: worthy attributes though these are, the harsh realities
of contemporary life in school calls for a realistic range of strategies to avoid legal
incidents.
8.3
Discussion
The stories above are largely self-explanatory, and they reinforce the view that an
opinion about a complex issue such as this is not a unidimensional construct but
something that is made up of certain bits and pieces, assembled in a particular way.
The first story which is called The Training Solution has a strong training theme.
It is concerned largely with relevant people receiving the necessary instruction, and
the point of view also specifies that both the National Institute of Education (NIE)
and the Ministry of Education (MOE) have a crucial role to play in providing this
training. The view also mentions good relationships, policies and procedures, and
several other supporting strategies, but the essence is still training. The strategies
rejected in this viewpoint include drawing on the Principals Handbook for guidance
and making use of experience. One might assume the Principals Handbook was seen
as the definitive guide to all actions for the principal, but this factor tells us
otherwise. It does not mean the handbook is never used; rather, it means that
principals who hold this point of view are unlikely to see only reading the handbook
as a sustainable strategy for avoiding legal risk. The rejection of experience as a key
aid to risk management was slightly surprising, because experience has always been
held in high regard in Asian societies. It seems, however, that in a fast-changing
322
world experience may be nice to have but may not provide the know-how for
dealing with novel and complex issues.
The second factor has an emphasis on procedures. This was evident from the
statements about behaviour policies, risk assessments and standard operating
procedures. However, the follow-up interview with an exemplar corrected the
erroneous impression that the viewpoint was mainly about blindly following the
rules. Rather, it is about ensuring there is a system of guidelines in place that can
influence peoples actions. The story is also about strong leadership and having
principals at the helm who will ensure there is no ambiguity when teachers have to
make decisions that could involve hazard. Thus, it is the principal who should spell
out policies and procedures, and who should provide constant reinforcement and
reminders. These messages are very prominent in the viewpoint. There are other
contributory elements to the account. For example, training is important, and so is
the development of good relationships with parents. One statement referred to
keeping the best interests of the children at heart in order to avoid legal risk, but
this was rejected as a viable strategy. Pragmatically, this point of view accepts that
it is easy to get into hot water if one naively assumes that catering to the childrens
interests is the same as complying with the law.
The third factor was the most interesting solution. It is very much to do with
relationships and developing the skill to enhance the quality of relationships. Unlike
Factor 2, keeping the best interests of children at heart is seen as a key strategy,
because, as one principal said when the researcher was gathering the statements for
the concourse, No judge is going to condemn you if you are doing things for the
childrens sake. The need for relationships is comprehensive. It includes
relationships between teachers and pupils, between teachers and parents, and
323
between principal and teachers. The whole extended community of the school must
be characterized by high quality interactions. Common sense is also seen as a
valuable aid to dealing with potential legal issues. That was in stark contrast to the
other three points of view, which were less enthusiastic about the value of common
sense. In this particular story, one sees the role of government in supporting the
work of principals: it advocates the government setting up legislative standards for
problematic areas like staff-student ratios (for school trips) and hazardous activities.
Perhaps the most surprising angle on this viewpoint, though, is that training is largely
rejected: not entirely, but selectively. The viewpoint does not accept any need for
large scale training. Actually, it is not too surprising when one looks at the story in its
entirety, for if relationships are that powerful in preventing many of the difficult
situations schools face, then there is no need for extensive training provision.
The fourth factor is what is called the blend or rojak solution. Rojak is an
indigenous word meaning a mixture of many kinds of things. It can be used
derogatively to indicate a lack of focus, but it is felt that the word is appropriate in
this case to indicate a number of diverse strategies bundled together to make a
coherent and acceptable whole. There are many strategies attached to this solution,
but two are worth drawing particular attention to: first, it advocates the government
providing better protection for teachers by giving them immunity from lawsuits;
second, it suggests that the MOE could do more to give clear advice, and even
suggests the setting up of a legal helpdesk.
In drawing out some of the key strategies from these points of view, there is a danger
of isolating specific strategies and attaching unwarranted importance to them. For
example, although attention is drawn to relationship development strategies in
Factor 3, the point of view is much more complex than that. Indeed, the viewpoint is
324
incomplete without all the other strategies that give it its shape. Seen in this light,
there is no sense in asking people to complete a checklist to indicate preferred
singular strategies, because as we have shown here that precludes the existence
of whole points of view. That is where this methodology provides a convincing
basis for accessing the complexity of issues and seeing them in a holistic sense.
Attention is now turned to a few of the interesting analyses of the factors. The
analyses from PQMethod are shown in Appendix 4.
8.4
Analyses of the Statements and Factors
The Q methodology software produces a range of useful analyses. The Consensus

versus Disagreement analysis sorts statements according to their relative degrees of
agreement and disagreement. The scale, incidentally, is from +5 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). It is the disagreement that provides the more interesting
information. For example, the statement:
All appointment holders (P, VP, HODs, STs, DM, AM107 etc) should receive instruction or
training in legal matters affecting the school.
was ranked highly in three factors (+5, +4, +3) and lowly in the other factor (-4).
There was a wide disparity of view also on the statement:
Keep the best interests of the children at heart and you wont encounter problems. Even if
you do, a judge would always understand your intention.
It was seen as very important as a strategy in one viewpoint and of little or no

importance in the others. There were similar disparities in statements relating to the
National Institute of Education (NIE) and its role in providing training. One of the
more interesting points of disagreement, however, related to the governments role:
No worries! Singapore is not like other countries. The government can step in and stop any
nonsense. Look what happened to the SIA pilots!
107
Principals, Vice-Principals, Heads of Departments, Senior Teachers, Discipline Masters, Administrative
Managers
325
Three of the factors had this ranked at the very bottom (-5) but Factor 3 placed it at
+1. While that rating in itself may not raise any eyebrows, it is important to note it
was not rejected. Its placement saw it as a viable strategy, certainly in one point of
view. This is understandable. The government has often intervened in problematic
situations, and this viewpoint clearly suggests that if things get out of hand if
parents start suing teachers and schools the government will not stand idly by. The
sentence Look what happened to the SIA pilots! is a fascinating annexe to the item
statement, and it was given to the researcher by a principal during the concourse.
Only weeks before the researcher commenced, Singapore Airlines pilots had been in
dispute with the employer. The government intervened and, subsequently, the
pilots union leader a foreign national had his permanent residence revoked and
was thus unable to work for the company. The government can indeed make its
presence felt in difficult situations, although three of the viewpoints did not accept
that as an effective strategy in helping schools cope with the law.
The most important analysis is that which identifies the distinguishing statements for
each factor. These are the items that give each factor its identity: its separation
from other factors. For the first factor, what we call The Training Solution, these
were some of the distinguishing statements:
All appointment holders (P, VP, HODs, STs, DM, AM etc) should receive
instruction or training in legal matters affecting the school.
NIE should include law in its leadership programmes, like LEP and DDM108.
NIE should have legal instruction in its pre-service and perhaps in-service
courses.
We should give legal knowledge to teachers first. If they get things right,
there is less need for principals to be involved.
108
Leaders in Education Programme and the Diploma in Departmental Management, compulsory

programmes designed for incoming principals and incumbent and incoming heads of departments.
326
These are statements that were rated differently in the other factors. Here, only the
positive statements are indicated, that is, those that help to characterize what the
view is rather than what it is not. The analysis, however, shows us statements
that may be rejected in this point of view but which are not rejected (to the same
extent, perhaps) in other points of view. For example, the statement
Often, its the students who start things off. We should remind them about things like
fighting, bullying etc. and the consequences they face.
was rejected in this factor, while in the other factors it was either accepted (Factor
3) or seen neutrally. It is clear, though, from the positive, distinguishing statements
alone that there is a strong element of training in the point of view, extended by
identifying who should provide the training and who should receive it.
Factor 2, The Guidelines and Leadership Solution, has several distinguishing

statements:
We must have strong leaders in schools, leaders who will give clear
instructions and ensure compliance.
The principal should spell out behaviour policies and disciplinary procedures
on a regular basis to teachers, pupils and others.
There must be constant reinforcement. Principals should remind teachers of

the things they do (or fail to do) that could have legal implications.
Schools should adopt Standard Operating Procedures to cover all situations.
Each of these statements is scored highly for the factor. There is marked contrast in
the scoring for the statement about standard operating procedures amongst the
factors. In this factor, it is ranked +3, while in the other factors 1, 3 and 4, it is
ranked 0, -2, and 0 respectively. Indeed, the statements that separate this factor
from the others are essentially about policies, systems, processes, procedures and
strong leadership. But even the leadership statement is about giving instructions and
ensuring compliance, so it fits neatly into the procedural mould.
327
Factor 3 yielded the greatest number of distinguishing statements, but this included
six negatively ranked statements, thus indicating what the point of view is definitely
not about. Such statements included:
NIE should have legal instruction in its pre-service and perhaps in-service
courses.
NIE should include law in its leadership programmes, like LEP and DDM.
All appointment holders (P, VP, HODs, STs, DM, AM etc) should receive
instruction or training in legal matters affecting the school.
If the school knows where there are problem areas (e.g. PE, labs, bullying
places) we should increase the monitoring.
We must have strong leaders in schools, leaders who will give clear
instructions and ensure compliance.
Step up supervision measures in the school.
These negatively ranked distinguishing statements make it clear that the point of
view rejects the efficacy of training at NIE, training for key personnel, and the
escalation of monitoring and supervision. It also rejects the notion of strong
leadership being a necessary condition for preventing legal risk. The statements that
help explain what the viewpoint is about and that distinguish it from the other three
viewpoints are:
We should keep in regular contact with parents, keeping them informed, then
they wont create difficulties.
Keep the best interests of the children at heart and you wont encounter
problems. Even if you do, a judge would always understand your intention.
We should draw on the help of lawyer friends or alumni if legal matters arise.
This is all a management issue. Use common sense, be sensitive and honest,
and the risks will be minimised.
No worries! Singapore is not like other countries. The government can step in
and stop any nonsense. Look what happened to the SIA pilots!
328
While there is a strong theme of relationships, and particularly those with parents
and students, it is a fascinating viewpoint that brings in several other strands of
opinion. For example, the statement above about the governments intervention
capabilities was completely rejected (-5, -5, -5) in all the other points of view. This
viewpoint was also the only one that gave credence to the value of common sense. It
could have been expected that sensitivity and honesty combined with a healthy
dose of common sense would be seen as important qualities in bringing about a
relatively risk-free environment, but that was not to be, except in this viewpoint.
The statement about drawing on the help of lawyer friends also suggests that the
viewpoint, while creating favourable relationship conditions, accepts that
occasionally things may go wrong, but that there is no need to go overboard.
One other statement deserves special mention, partly because it was identified as a
distinguishing statement for this factor, significant at the p=<.01 level. It was the
nostalgia statement:
Lets go back to the days when what the school said and did was indeed the law. Parents
respected the school. Lets leave the law to lawyers.
The other viewpoints ranked it -5, -4 and -5 respectively, indicating firm rejection. In
this point of view, it was ranked at 0. Thus, it is unlikely that it is rejected, but
rather seen as an acceptable strategy if that is the right word. There appears to be,
in this viewpoint, a longing for the conditions in which relationships were
predominantly strong and in which the school was seen as good and as having the
final word.
For the final factor, there are several distinguishing statements that warrant
attention. One, significant at the p=<.01 level, is:
The government should introduce legislation to prevent schools, principals and teachers
from being sued.
329
In writing the account, it was explained that this factor has several diverse strands
that form a blend of strategies, most of which appear in the other factors. Thus, they
are unlikely to appear as distinguishing statements. This statement, though, is one
that uniquely sets the point of view apart. Amidst the range of other strategies, the
government can play its part by creating an environment in which teachers are not
unnecessarily fearful or apprehensive of the law.
There were two statements about the MOE. The first was:
MOE should give clear advice and publicise it so that schools can call up anytime. We need
a legal Helpdesk.
Like the government, therefore, the MOE should play a supportive part, and in an
instant world, it is seen as unreasonable to have to wait for advice! The
expectations of the MOE are indeed considerable. Whether the next statement,
significant at the p=<.01 level, is a case of wishful thinking or a genuinely held view
is a matter for conjecture:
The MOE should prevent the press from getting hold of stories about schools.
Finally, this point of view rejects the need to draw on lawyer friends and alumni
when things go wrong, and it also rejects that it is a viable strategy to make the
school a risk-free zone. All in all, it is a viewpoint that is characterized by a
comprehensive range of strategies, but with several unique tactics to enlist the help
of government and MOE.
It is clear from the above that there are several very distinctive points of view
amongst senior administrators, and in the following paragraphs, the implications of
the Q methodology analysis will be discussed.
330
8.5
Implications of the Q methodology Study
From the analysis of the Q methodology study, one understands the educators points
of view better. Much of the research in the field says very little about the opinions
and viewpoints, but provides plenty of information about the people who hold
opinions. For example, instead of approaching the issue of risk limitation strategies
in this way, suppose the researcher had formulated a long list of all the strategies
mentioned in the research and then asked respondents to check those they thought
were the most effective strategies. Then the researcher would have ended up with a
rank order of the most widely supported strategies, like, 75% of principals think
training for appointment holders is effective, 52% think standard operating
procedures are effective, and so on. But such an analysis tells the researcher very
little, because it does not help the researcher to understand peoples opinions in all
their complexity. Knowing that 75% of principals believe in training as a strategy does
not shed any light on an individuals opinion. The researcher needs to know the
individuals opinion in its entirety in order to understand his or her point of view.
That brings one to the next implication.
In order to connect with an individual, one needs to understand the essence of a

persons point of view. In a classic piece of research using Q methodology, Wendy
Stainton Rogers explored peoples views about health and illness. Her research
suggested that there were eight dominant accounts: one, for instance, was about
the power of medicine to treat naturally occurring illness; another was a spiritual
account about health being a product of right living; yet another was about the
capacity of willpower to control health (Stainton Rogers, 1991, p.143). The point of
all this is that if the government is putting policies in place to persuade people that a
healthy lifestyle is a determinant of good health, it may be speaking to only a
331
fraction of the population that holds such a view. It is unlikely to communicate

effectively with those who believe that health is something determined by God.
If one accepts this premise, then this research clearly has implications for policy
makers. As there are concerns about how to help schools cope with legal issues,
which seem to be part and parcel of the contemporary scene, if one strategic line is
advanced, how persuasive will it be to those whose viewpoints are shaped in
different ways? For example, if those who work in higher education are advocating
the supremacy of training in averting legal risk, then it may be persuasive only with
those whose views correspond to any degree with Factor 1: the Training Solution.
The message needs to be tailored to the audience. Therefore, policy makers may be
well-advised to account for the distinctive points of view and target different
messages to different audiences.
Whether one accepts that position or not is immaterial. What is more important is
that from this study, one can have a deeper understanding of the points of view that
people dearly even passionately hold. If one can accept that viewpoints are an
amalgam of different elements and are usually complex, one is on the way to
understanding people themselves. Much of the research denies people of this depth
and accords to them merely superficial and reduced viewpoints. Perhaps this
research has shown that the thinking and formed opinion about facing up to legal
issues in schools is as complex as the people who hold opinions. There may be many
different reasons for principals failing to provide what we consider to be adequate
training for their staff. Their views may be more consistent with the relationships
solution, for example. If policy makers think that their models of opinion are the
only ones and that there is a linear relationship between intent and action, then they
may be disillusioned to find that the linkage is less than predictable.
332
Stainton Rogers (1991, p.232) beautifully illustrates the insightthat action can be
instantiated only (if at all) by access to the account within which it is predicated.
She goes on to explain:
I have a neighbour who smiles wanly each year as she comes round to my
house with a collecting tin and asks me to donate to cancer research, clearly
unable to understand how anyone could refuse on moral grounds. Her
incomprehension is, I believe, the consequence of her having no access to
my cultural critique account of medicine (however hard I try to explain it).
If such a complete lack of comprehension can occur between two people
who ostensibly share, in any demographic analysis, a single socio-economic
class, gender and age group, how much more is it likely to occur between
people whose social and cultural origins and roles differ more widely?
While this research may not have encountered amongst the population of school
principals such demographic diversity, this study has shown that formulations by
policy makers may not result in principals action, because it would be erroneous to
think that principals and their colleagues will make sense of strategy by reference
only to the policy makers schemes.
Perhaps the next step beyond this initial contribution to this area of study is to
take understanding forward to another level. Stainton Rogers (1991, p.233) leaves us
with this thought: Before we can even begin to predict what people will do, we
need to gain a better understanding about why people do what they do, based upon
their understandings of their actions. Maybe in terms of creating a better
understanding of the issue of principals and how they manage legal issues in their
schools this research has taken a step albeit a small one in the right direction.
In the final chapter, some concluding thoughts are offered and further implications
are addressed.
333
CHAPTER NINE
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
9.1
Introduction
This chapter provides a review of the study and the findings, and examines the
implications of the study for future research, school leaders and for the education
authorities in Singapore.
9.2
Review of the Study
The study was prompted by the rapid changes that were taking place in the education
system in Singapore, the effect of globalisation on the nation, and the noticeable
change in parental expectations and concerns about schooling issues. The review of
literature in Chapters Three and Five revealed that there is a whole range of legal
issues affecting the education sector in other countries that may be the same issues
that have or will surface in Singapore education. Furthermore, it will be recalled
that, in Chapter One, the education system in Singapore is moving towards a more
decentralised model, where principals are given greater authority and autonomy.
Under these conditions, it arguably becomes important for school leaders to have the
skills and knowledge needed to meet the demands for the increased accountability
imposed. But does this accountability have any legal ramifications? This study thus
set out: (1) to understand the developments of legal issues in education in other
jurisdictions and how those developments might have a bearing on the legal
responsibilities of school leaders in Singapore; (2) to identify the areas of law school
leaders have encountered in school administration and their perceptions of their
need for legal literacy; and (3) to provide suggestions or strategies to manage legal
risks in schools.
334
This study has been an exploratory qualitative and quantitative study, and has, in the
main, drawn its findings from the analysis of the interview transcripts and from the
analysis of the data collected through Q methodology.
9.3
Review of the Findings
In the literature review in Chapter Five, the legal matters encountered by schools in
various commonwealth countries were discussed. It is apparent from the analysis of
data that school leaders in Singapore have the potential to be involved with similar
legal issues in their administration of schools, although the extent of their
involvement may not match their counterparts in other countries. It is therefore
useful, at this point, to summarise the main findings that emerged from answers to
the research questions:
Singapore society is changing, in that there is an increase in awareness, if not

knowledge, about issues, including legal issues, that affect childrens education.
This awareness translates into a need for school leaders to have more knowledge
about the legal dimensions of running a school.
The general principles in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child (1989) appear to have a role to play in at least complementing or enhancing
the school leaders philosophy of educating a child, and more should be done to
bring the key thinking behind the Convention to the attention of educators.
Schools have encountered, to various extents, incidents involving students with

disabilities, bullying, student injuries (negligence and supervision), behaviour
management (corporal punishment, suspension and expulsion), educational
malpractice and sexual misconduct.
The two main areas that were thought to be of emerging concern and that school
leaders will increasingly have to deal with are negligence and safety (including
335
physical, emotional and psychological safety,) and the sexual misconduct of

teachers.
To principals, legal responsibility involves mainly ensuring the safety of students.

In the past, the notion of legal responsibility had little bearing on school
leadership. But because of the move to give school leaders more autonomy in
decision-making, school leaders have a higher level of accountability and have to
deal with an increasing range of issues, including legal issues.
Principals appear to have a minimal knowledge of the law their schools are
involved with, although they are of the view that there is an increase in the
influence of law in school policies. In addition, managing legal matters caused
more stress than previous years. As such, there is a need for principals to gain a
knowledge of education law so that they are not in reactive mode all the time,
responding to legal issues as they occur.
Four points of view or proposed solutions emerged in answer to the question

about what schools might do to cope with significant care issues and to avoid
legal difficulties. They are: the Training Solution, the Guidelines and
Leadership Solution, the Relationship Solution and the Blend or Rojak
Solution.
It may be recalled that, in Chapter Six, a Pilot Study was conducted to gauge the
legal knowledge held and needed by principals in Singapore schools. Comparing the
results of Chapters Seven and Eight with the Pilot Study, it appears that the analyses
of the data in each of these chapters complement one another to a large degree. All
this information provides important insights into the advice that might be given,
based on the findings, and how further research might be directed in order to
generate an even deeper appreciation of the issues at play.
336
9.4
Conclusions
9.4.1 Interviews
When the research first began and during the information gathering stage of the
research, not many educators in Singapore really knew what education law meant
or what schools and the law had in common. But through interacting with educators
during the course of the research and by conducting numerous workshops on Schools
and the Law, the researcher observed an increased interest in this area. Although
there are not many pieces of legislation and certainly no local case law (at the time
of the research) that impact on schools in particular, the participants in this study
nevertheless unanimously agreed that education law is of emerging relevance in
Singapore. Interestingly, as this study drew to a close, the judgment for the first civil
case brought by parents against the government for negligence and breach of the
duty of care was pronounced by the Singapore courts on 11 September 2007109. Until
that date, all civil cases brought against schools had been settled out of court110.
Whether this case has been brought to the attention of educators in Singapore is
unknown, but it does set a new tone for managing legal risks in schools, since school
leaders cannot now hide behind the ubiquitous disclaimer, It may happen
elsewhere, but it wont happen in Singapore. Singapore now has her own precedent
in terms of the standard required of a school when exercising its duty of care;
additionally, lessons can be learnt from cases heard in other countries if schools are
serious about averting legal risks.
A major finding from the interviews was that principals were very concerned about
the safety of students and how the law of negligence might affect the administration
109
110
UY v. Attorney General (2007)
This information was provided to the researcher orally by legal officers in the Legal Department,
Ministry of Education. Also, prior to 11 September 2007, legal research showed that there were no
reported cases of lawsuits against schools for negligence.
337
of their schools. One principal (P9) raised these questions during the course of the
interview:
But what is adequate supervision, how much? Then the other thing is, What is
the personal responsibility? What do you deem as the childs personal
responsibility and what is the schools responsibility? So, actually to what
degree we can take the risk?
While schools may be aware of the need to ensure safety for children, there is
probably a need to educate school leaders on how to meet the minimum legal
requirements when exercising their duty of care.
Another major finding from the interviews was the principals concerns about the
possibility of potential for sexual misconduct on the part of teachers. The United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) dictates that the school must
act in the best interest of the child. As such, a school faced with any allegations of
sexual misconduct will inevitably investigate the incident. However, the difficulty lies
not so much in the blatant sexual misconduct of teachers, but, rather, in the
innocent and friendly touching of students by teachers, or where teachers knowingly
have relationships with students outside school hours. Those situations put school
leaders in a quandary.
An interesting finding was the existence of Cyberbullying in Singapore schools. As

Chapter Three has shown, globalisation has exerted considerable influence in society
and information and technology now permeate every aspect of our lives. Regrettably
for some, the downside of advancement in technology is that it provides an avenue
for bullying to take place insidiously outside school and outside school hours. And
there is also the issue of mobile bullying or m-bullying. In a survey of 218
Queensland teens, Associate Professor Judy Drennan of Queensland University of
Technology found that 93.6% claimed to be victims of m-bullying (Brown, 2008). Some
338
school leaders in Singapore may well find themselves looking for ways in the not-toodistant future to respond to the transnational problem of cyberbullying and mbullying.
With reference to educational malpractice, a few themes emerged from the findings.
First, parents expectations of teachers performance are becoming higher, unlike
the past, where parents did not criticise teachers at all but rather gave them
considerable respect and held them in very high regard. Participant 7 gave the
example of a parent who threatened to sue the school for a teachers incompetent
marking. School leaders now need to be able to deal with higher parental
expectations so that incidents do not escalate into legal encounters.
Second, educational malpractice is not confined to poor teaching. On the contrary, it

can imply the reverse: in some cases, teachers may be teaching too much and causing
undue stress to students by imposing unreasonable demands on them. Although only a
minority, there are parents who request teachers not to stress their children. As P1
said:
Parent who will say that, Oh, its ok, I dont want my child to be in EM1, you
know, I dont want to stress him out. Just let him be.
Third, in a system where teachers are appraised by their supervisors and graded
according to their performance, there is a belief (at least by one participant) that
poor quality teachers should gradually be weeded out. However, this belief does not
address the issue of what constitutes weak or incompetent. Further, this is an
over-simplified view that overlooks the context of increasing demands from all
quarters on the profession and a job that is no longer confined to providing
instructions in the classroom. In the context, therefore, of a multidimensional remit,
how does one evaluate performance and give relative weightings to the various
339
dimensions? That difficulty aside, although it may not be an immediate concern to

school leaders, the notion of educational malpractice should probably be treated
more seriously than it currently is.
In response to the question regarding the current status of legal responsibility in

schools, the participants mainly referred to the rights of the child. But, the
interviews also recorded a brief mention by four principals (P3, P7, P8 and P9) about
protecting the rights of teachers. However, the rights these principals referred to
pertained mainly to the right to a safe working environment. They did not address
any other aspects of teachers rights, such as employment rights and grievance
procedures.
Although from the findings the participants did not attach equal importance to all the
legal issues affecting schools, the study nevertheless revealed that school leaders are
involved with a number of them. Issues such as those discussed above, as well as
corporal punishment, suspension, expulsion, bullying, special needs, student suicides,
custody issues, contract and intellectual property, arise from time to time, and
school leaders have to deal with them head on. As P3 observed:
I think usually, the awareness comes in as a form of an explosion, when we are
hit in the face, then we have no choice but to go and deal with it.
The participants in the interview offered several suggestions about the form of
support that can be provided to assist them in managing legal issues. They included a
platform for sharing cases, comprehensive guidelines in the form of a manual,
attending talks, seminars or workshops, formal training, buying insurance and even
legal audits. All the participants also felt that there was a need for the Ministry of
Education to provide a Legal Help Desk that would be easily accessible to them.
With the myriad of suggestions, it was felt that a more structured approach was
340
needed to address this issue in order to give it greater coherence and, eventually,
utility.
9.4.2 Q Method
In the previous chapter, it was suggested that this study provides a methodological
advance in understanding the complexity of different perspectives by using Q
methodology. This approach allows the researcher to use a combination of
quantitative and qualitative data to understand points of view rather than the people
who hold those points of view. Thus, it provides the facility to interrogate the nature
of opinion and viewpoint in depth.
Using Q methodology, the researcher gave 47 educators (mostly principals and senior
MOE personnel) a range of statements about what should be done to avoid legal risk
and asked them to rank order them in order to produce their own, individual points
of view. A dedicated software package was used to analyse these separate opinions
and to reduce them to several summary opinions. There were four in total and the
researcher gave each one a name in order to indicate the key themes within it.
Some interesting themes emerged from these stories. The first viewpoint was largely
about the need for training, while the second was about systems and procedures,
combined with strong leadership. The third viewpoint emphasised the need for strong
relationships, but also brought in the role of government in setting legislative
standards; while the fourth one focussed on a range of strategies, and emphasised
the need for government and MOE to play their part. This result certainly dispelled
the researchers a priori assumptions that the best way for schools to manage legal
risks was by sending principals for training.
341
So what is the methodological advance here? Too often, peoples opinions are
reduced to meaningless generalised abstractions, whereas this research threw light
on the complex nature of divergent points of view. Second, by understanding
holistically the points of view about a defined issue, one may communicate more
effectively with people who align themselves with a particular point of view. Perhaps
this research has shown, therefore, that the thinking and formed opinion about facing
up to legal issues in schools is immensely complex and any study that ignores that
complexity probably fails to get to the root of the issues involved. In looking at
strategies to address legal risk in schools, it is possible that no study prior to this has
addressed the complexity of divergent viewpoints and attempted to account for these
viewpoints by adopting innovative methodological approaches. As van Exel and de
Graf (2005) state, Q Methodologyis a suitable and powerful methodology for
exploring and explaining problems in subjectivities, generating new ideas and
hypotheses, and identifying consensus and contrasts in views, opinions and
preferences. By adopting the approach in this study, the researcher has been able to
explore and explain new patterns of opinion about legal risk and its management, and
to identify a range of consensus and disagreement in complex viewpoint, which has
shed light on what is, for schools and the systems in Singapore, a difficult and new
area for attention in a changing scene for education.
9.5
Limitations of the Study
The principals who participated in this research were chosen mainly from primary and
secondary government and government-aided schools, so tertiary institutions,
independent and special schools were not included. Further, the answers to the
research questions were obtained from an opportunity sample and thus cannot be
representative of the views of all the school principals in Singapore. The study never
set out to be definitive and issue of generalisability, therefore, was not advanced as
342
an objective. Rather, the study sought to give some indications about what may be
happening in the system and how the system might respond to a changing landscape.
Secondly, as this was arguably the first study in Singapore that explores the
implications of the law impacting Singapore schools, there was little guidance
available from earlier research to direct this study. More research will have to be
undertaken to provide a more developed and refined understanding of the whole
issue.
9.6
Implications - An End that Marks the Beginning
It is with optimism that the conclusion of this study provokes a cycle of research in
the area of schools and the law in Singapore. Several implications may be formed
from the conclusions reached in this study. These are addressed under the headings
of ideas for research, implications for principals and implications for policies.
9.6.1 Ideas for Further Research

This exploratory study has provided insights into the relevance of legal issues to
school management and administration in Singapore. The answers and questions
raised by the participants in the study about the legal issues that schools might
encounter provide several useful ideas for further research.
Using this exploratory study as a conceptual basis, quantitative research might be

carried out to find out the extent of involvement of schools with the law and whether
it is a growing area of concern for school leaders.
In this study, questions were asked regarding how schools might develop risk
management systems and what forms of support might be given to school leaders to
343
cope with legal matters. Another possible development is for researchers to spend
time in school and use observational techniques to understand the processes or
strategies that principals actually use to manage legal problems on a daily basis. A
related and interesting comparative study might be to investigate the difference in
outcomes between proactive preventive legal risk management strategies and
reactive forms of engagement with issues of a legal nature.
This study has indicated that the principals interviewed had, to various extents,
handled legal matters in their respective jobs. It is reasonable to assume too, that
many legal matters arise at the classroom level. Where do teachers stand in all this?
School based or action research could be undertaken to determine whether there are
any specific concerns amongst teachers about legal issues, and whether they have
any adverse effect on their ability to teach. It may also be useful to investigate
whether involvement in legal matters causes teachers undue stress, and, if so, the
actions that might be taken to alleviate the situation.
Many legal issues were identified by participants in this study. Specific issues could
be further researched, especially those that relate to meeting parents demands for
accountability. For example, what is school safety and what are students rights
exactly? And what actions might schools take to protect students and avoid liability?
Another area relates to bullying, m-bullying and cyberbullying. These are serious
matters that warrant extensive investigation, and there is scope for more varied and
creative approaches to researching them. For example, conducting narrative
research, and obtaining stories and experiences from students, parents and teachers,
may provide in-depth insights into the issues and how they interface with the law.
344
Finally, since this research commenced with a review of emerging legal issues for
schools internationally, perhaps it would be of interest to conduct a school-based
comparison of the impact of law for school leaders across a different countries. Such
comparisons (and the attendant contrasts, of course) might provide a useful basis for
thinking about coping strategies for school leaders in Singapore.
9.6.2 Implications for Principals

A theme that came through very strongly in the study is the need for principals to
acquire a professional knowledge of the law impacting school administration. As
intimated by one participant, school principals do not need law degrees or to be
experts in the law. However, as correctly pointed out by Participant 10,
we need to know enough to make good decisions, to understand, to undergird
the kind of decisions that we make.
The basic knowledge needed here would include that about relevant legislation,
common law, criminal law, family law (in particular, custody issues) and grievance
procedures. Where principals have sufficient professional knowledge of the law
impacting their jobs, it would dispel any incorrect perceptions that a principal is
always personally liable for all legal matters that arise in their schools, as seen in
Participant 1s statement:
P1: on the flip side, I am responsible. I cannot say that my teacher did it. I am
responsible. At the end of it, the principal is accountable.
The popular idea from the participants that a platform be set up for the sharing of
incidents and coping strategies is a constructive one. As noted by Participant 6:
P6: my knowledge I think is quite high as a principal because of my own
brushes with the law. I learnt the hard way.
This statement confirms the observation of Stewart, 1996a, where he highlighted the
comments of Kowalski and Reitzug (1993) that professionals are guided by an
345
embedded, tacit knowledge which is based on an implicit repertoire of techniques

and strategies for handling situations that evolves over time (pp. 235-236). A good
starting point would be for school leaders heads of department, vice-principals and
principals - to work closely together in the same school to develop such a range of
techniques and strategies. These experiences would be invaluable when principals
come together to share their knowledge.
Finally, the emergence of legal issues in schools appears to be forcing principals to

rethink many conventional school policies and practices. There is an
acknowledgement that society and the environment are constantly changing, and
that past actions and policies may not be applicable any more. If principals were to
gain appropriate and sufficient legal knowledge, it would inform policy and practice
development more effectively.
9.6.3 Implications for Policies

The data in this study shows that legal issues do exist in Singapore schools and that
school leaders are keen to receive some form of support in managing such risks.
Singapore is noted internationally for having one of the best leadership training
programmes in the world, where selected experienced education officers go through
six months of full time training in preparation for principalship. The researcher had
the privilege to head start an enrichment programme on Schools and the Law as
part of the leadership training, and the programme is still running. However, while
attending a single session or even a series of events on legal issues does increase the
level of legal literacy in the short term, it does not sustain the knowledge needed for
effective legal risk management. Thus, ongoing in-service courses on the law
affecting schools over the first few years of principalship are likely to provide the
sort of experience that will give leaders the confidence needed.
346
Schools encounter a plethora of situations involving the law. Some schools may face
bullying issues, some safety issues, while others may have to constantly deal with
custody issues. Therefore, in-service education needs to be extensive, focussed and
regular so that legal knowledge is constantly upgraded. The education authority may
also need to consider if teachers should be equipped with a similar level of
knowledge so as to avoid the legal landmines that principals so often have to
unravel.
When this research first began, the legal department in the Ministry of Education had
only one legal officer, who handled enquiries from schools. Some four years later, the
department had expanded to three legal officers plus support staff. That indicates a
vast expansion in legally-related activity in schools, and one might question whether
the situation has been exacerbated by insufficient education of school leaders. That
aside, these officers, through their daily involvement with education law matters,
may be a useful resource for schools. Perhaps it is possible to invite these legal
officers to periodically share their legal knowledge as part of the ongoing in-services
courses.
Last but not least, fifty per cent of the interviewees indicated in the questionnaire
that the Principals Handbook is the most important source of legal knowledge to
them (see Appendix 3C). The Handbook, however, describes mainly policies, but does
not delve into the legal aspects of them. It may be timely to review the Handbook to
include common issues on schools and the law. This would assist principals who need
quick answers to these common issues, and, in addition, reduce the number of
queries reaching the legal department daily.
347
Last Words
This study was prompted by a desire to discover if emerging legal issues
internationally have any implications for school leaders in Singapore. The evidence so
far suggests that school leaders do indeed encounter, to a small or large extent, legal
issues in the leadership and management of their schools. Although this exploratory
study has not provided definitive data on the need for school leaders to have a
professional knowledge of legal matters in the administration of schools, it has,
however, demonstrated that legal issues do exist in schools and these have important
and wide-ranging implications for the education community at large. It has also
shown a convincing emerging trend: that many of the issues currently encountered in
other jurisdictions may well, over time, find their way into the Singapore arena, and
that seems probable when one examines the changing nature of Singapore society in
a globalised context. Indeed, the study of developments in other jurisdictions
provides suitable warning of what is just over the horizon. It is also hoped that this
study will provide the impetus for further research to be conducted in this area, both
in Singapore and other jurisdictions.
348
REFERENCES
Accident Insurance Act 1998, No. 114 (now replaced by the Injury Prevention,
Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001, No. 49). (New Zealand)
Adoption of Children Act (Cap. 4, 1939, Rev. Ed. 1985). (Singapore)
Age Discrimination Act 2004, Act No. 68 of 2004. (Commonwealth of Australia)
Ali (FC) (Respondent) v. Headteacher and Governors of Lord Grey School (Appellants)
(2006) UKHL 14. (England)
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, U.S. Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat 327 (1990).
(United States)
Anderson, G. (2001). Rights of the disabled child to education (Childhood disability
research project). National Accessibility Portal. Available from http://www.napsa.
org.za/portal/public/content/view/viewContent.jsf?conversationId=80&selectedConte
ntId=8291&conversationPropagation=join.
Anderson, S. & Fraser, S. (2002). Protecting our Students (and their teachers too). A
Canadian perspective. Paper presented at the Australia and New Zealand Education
Law Association 11th Annual Conference: Legal Risk Management Safety Security &
Success In Education, Brisbane (2-4 October), 183-206.
Annual Report of the Minister of Education (1994-95) (n.d.). Abolition of corporal
punishment, p. 6. Retrieved 1 February, 2007, from http://education.qld.gov.au/
information/service/ libraries/edhistory/topics/ corporal/abolition.html.
Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, Act No. 85 of 1991. (Queensland, Australia)
Arksey, H. & Knight, P.T. (1999). Interviewing for social scientists. London: Sage. In
Rapley, T. (2004) Interviews. In Seale. C, Gobo. G, Gubrium J.F. & Silverman. D (Ed)
(2004) Qualitative Research Practice, 15-34. London: Sage.
Arthur JS Hall v. Simmons (2002) 3 All ER 673. (England)
Atkinson, J. (2002). Education and the law: Protecting the educational well-being of
students. Paper presented at the Australia and New Zealand Education Law Association
11th Annual Conference: Legal Risk Management Safety Security & Success In
Education, Brisbane (2-4 October), 3-17.
Attorney-General v. Daniels [2003] 2 NZLR 742 (CA). (New Zealand)
Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (n.d.). Retrieved 15
January, 2007, from http://www. hreoc.gov.au/index.html.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2005 (n.d.). Child protection Australia 200304. Retrieved 13 February, 2007, from http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/
index.cfm/title/10095.
349
Aztech Systems Pte Ltd v. Creative Technology Ltd (1997) 1 SLR 621. (Singapore)
Bazley v. Curry (1999), 2 S.C.R. 534, 1999 CanLII 692 (S.C.C.). (Canada)
Bell, D.A. (2000). East meets west: Human rights and democracy in East Asia.
Princeton University Press.
Bell, J.P. & Trpanier, J.E. (2001). The Safe Schools Act of Ontario: A lesson for the
rest of the country: How not to do it". Paper presented at the 12th Annual Conference
for the Canadian Association for the Practical Study of the Law in Education 2001: An
Education Odyssey, Vancouver.
Berg, B.L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th ed).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Berman, L., Burkill, S., Russell, S. & Rabinowicz, J. (2001). Education negligence.
Education and the Law 13(1), 51-67.
Berryman, J.H. (1998). Safe students, safe schools and the duty of care. Professionally
speaking, December 1998, 20-23.
Bill 212, Education Amendment Act (Progressive Discipline and School Safety), 2007.
(Ontario, Canada)
Black, H.C. (1990). Blacks Law Dictionary. (6th ed). St. Paul, Minn: West Publishing
Co.
Blair, A. (2002). Negotiating conflicting values: The role of law in educating for values
in England and Wales. Education and the Law 14(1-2), 39-56.
Board of Education for the City of Toronto v. Higgs (1959), 22 DLR (2d) 49. (Canada)
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley (1982)
458 U.S. 176. (United States)
Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County
et al. v. Earls et al (2002), (01-332) 536 U.S. 822 (2002) 242 F.3d 1264, reversed.
(United States)
Bothe, P (1997). Bullying in schools. In Edwards, J. at el. (Ed). Schools and the law (1st
ed., pp.161-170): LBC Information Services.
Boyd, R. (1998) Independent schools: Law, custom and practice. London, Jordans,
cited in Palfreyman, D. (2001). Suffer little children: The evolution of the standard
reasonably expected in the duty of care to prevent physical injury on school premises.
Bradford-Smart v. West Sussex County Council (2001) ELR 138. (England)
350
Breakwell, J. (2002). Statutory interventions to ensure safety, security and success in
education the New Zealand risk framework. Paper presented at the Australia and
New Zealand Education Law Association 11th Annual Conference: Legal Risk
Management Safety Security & Success In Education, Brisbane (2-4 October), 57-64.
Brown, A. (2008, January 29). Phone technology not just for friendly chat. Fraser
Coast Chronicle.
Brown, S. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political
science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Brown, A.F. & Zuker, M.A. (2002). Education law (3rd ed). Thomson Canada Limited.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 374 U.S. 483 (1954). (United States)
Bullied (2003, October 13). The Straits Times, Singapore. Retrieved 13 October, 2003,
from http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/storyprintfriendly/0,18871, 214393,00.html.
Burton, S. (1993). Society vs the individual. Time, June 14. In Tan, K.Y.L. (1999)
Economic development, legal reform, and rights in Singapore and Taiwan. In Bauer
J.R. & Bell, D.A. (Ed) (1999). The East Asian challenge for human rights, 264-284.
Cambridge University Press.
Butler, D. & Mathews, B. (2007). Schools and the law. The Federation Press.
Campbell and Cosans v. United Kingdom (1982) 4 EHRR 293. (England)
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, The Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B
to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11.
Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. the Attorney General in Right
of Canada (2002), OJ No 61, (Ont. C.A.)
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. (1999) (96-1793) 526 U.S. 66
(1999) 106 F.3d 822. (United States)
Chamberlains v. Lai (2003)2 NZLR 274. (New Zealand)
Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, C.11. (Ontario)
Child Care Act, 1983 (No. 74 of 1983). (South Africa)
Child Welfare Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter 12. (Alberta)
Child Welfare Information Gateway (2005) (n.d.). Immunity for reporters of child
abuse and neglect. Retrieved 26 February, 2007, from http://www.childwelfare.gov/
systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/immunity.cfm#back5.
Children Act 1989, Chapter 41. (England)
351
Children and Community Services Act (2004), Act No. 34 of 2004. (Western Australia)
Children and Young People Act 1999, Act No. 63 of 1999. (Australian Capital Terrority)
Children and Young Persons Act (Cap. 38, 1993, Rev. Ed. 2001). (Singapore)
Children and Young Persons Act (1989), Act No. 56 of 1989. (Victoria)
Children And Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, Act 157 of 1998. (New
South Wales, Australia)
Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989, No. 70. (New Zealand)
Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1997, Act No. 28 of 1997. (Tasmania)
Childrens Protection Act 1993, Act No. 93 of 1993. (South Australia)
Childrens Resource Centre (n.d.). The anti-bullying campaign of the childrens
movement and the Childrens Resource Centre. Retrieved from http://www.
childrensmovement. org.za/ program. Htm.
Christian Youth Camps v. Department of Labour (Unreported) 11/12/2000, High Court,
Auckland, Justice Morris. (New Zealand)
Chua, L.H. (2003, October 23). Why leave slower learners to VWO schools?. The Straits
Times, Singapore.
Chua, M. H. (2004, August 13). PM Lee's invitation to ride the tide. The Straits Times,
Singapore.
Commonwealth v. Introvigne (1982) 150 CLR 258. (Australia)
Commonwealth Secretariat, Human Rights Unit, United Kingdom (2006) (n.d.).
Handbook on Ratification of Human Rights Instruments. Retrieved 25 April, 2007, from
http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Shared_ASP_Files/UploadedFiles/20AFBD50-7AF7492D-B68B-CDA734583FAD_ RatificationHandbook.pdf.
Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2003a). Consideration of reports submitted by
States Parties under Article 44 of the Convention. 27 October 2003. United Nations.
Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2003b). Summary record of the 909th meeting
held on 26 September 2003.
Community Welfare Act 1983, Act No. 76 of 1983. (Northern Territory, Australia)
Complaint laid against taradale school staff (2002, May 1). The Christchurch Press (p.
5). In Hay-Mackenzie, F. (2002). Tackling the bullies: In the classroom and in the
staffroom. Paper presented at the Australia and New Zealand Education Law
Association 11th Annual Conference: Legal Risk Management Safety Security & Success
In Education, Brisbane (2-4 October), 119-159.
352
Compulsory Education Act (Cap. 51, 2003). (Singapore)
Computer Misuse Act (Cap. 50A, 1993, Rev. Ed. 2007). (Singapore)
Conn, K. & Brady, K.P. (2007) My space and its relatives: The cyberbullying dilemma.
Paper presented at the 5th Commonwealth Education Law Conference, Williamsburg
VA, USA (19-21 April).
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (No. 108 of 1996). Available from
http://www.info. gov.za/documents/constitution/index.htm.
Copyright Act (Cap. 63, 1987, Rev. Ed. 2006). (Singapore)
Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (n.d.). Education in Canada. Retrieved 31
January, 2007, from http://www.cmec.ca/international/educationcanada.en.pdf.
Cox v. State of New South Wales [2007] NSWSC 471. (Australia)
Creswell, J.W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating
qualitative and quantitative research. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Creswell, J.W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating
qualitative and quantitative research (2nd ed). Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Crimes Act 1961, No. 43. (New Zealand)
Criminal Code of Canada R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. (Canada)
Criminal Justice Act 1985, No. 120. (New Zealand)
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68, 1955, Rev. Ed. 1985). (Singapore)
Crowther, F. & Limerick, B. (2000). Leader development through partnering: Surfing
the waves of the postmodern era. In K. Stott & V. Trafford (Eds) Partnerships: shaping
the future of education. London: Middlesex University Press.
Cumming, J.J. & Mawdsley, R.D. (2005 & 2006). Student rights and parent rights in
education in Australia. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Law and Education 10(2)
& 11(1), 37-54.
Curt, B. (1994). Textuality and tectonics: Troubling social and psychological science.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research. London: Sage.
Daniels v. Attorney-General (3 April 2002) HC AK M1516/SW99; Attorney-General v
Daniels (2003) 2 NZLR 742 (CA). (New Zealand)
Data Protection Act 1998, Chapter 29. (England)
353
Davis, D.E. (n.d.). Requirements and guidelines for homeschooling in South Africa.
Ezine Articles. Retrieved 13 March, 2008, from http://ezinearticles.com/?
Requirements-And-Guidelines-For-Homeschooling-In-South-Africa&id=899847.
Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1997) 120F 3d 1390, 120 Ed L Rep 390
(11th Circuit 1997). (United States)
De Waal, E. (2002). Safe entrance into education for gifted learners in South Africa.
Paper presented at the Australia and New Zealand Education Law Association 11th
Annual Conference: Legal Risk Management Safety Security & Success In Education,
Brisbane (2-4 October), 321-327.
De Wet, A. (2002). The educators duty to report child abuse and neglect. Paper
presented at the Australia and New Zealand Education Law Association 11th Annual
Conference: Legal Risk Management Safety Security & Success In Education, Brisbane
(2-4 October), 101-110.
De Wet, N.C. (2005). Bullying in South African schools. Paper presented at the Twelfth
International Conference on Learning, University of Granada (11-14 July).
Defamation Act (Cap. 75, 1957, Rev. Ed. 1985) (Singapore)
DOrta-Ekenaike v. Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 214 ALR 92. (Australia)
Department for Communities (n.d.). Reciprocal child protection procedures. Retrieved
13 May, 2007, from http://www.community.wa.gov.au/DFC/Publications/
PoliciesAndStrategicPlans/ Reciprocal+Child+Protection+Procedures+2002.htm.
Department of Child, Youth & Family Services 2001. (n.d.). An interagency guide to
breaking the cycle: Lets stop child abuse together. Retrieved 28 March, 2007, from
http://www.cyf.govt. nz/SuspectAbuse.htm.
Department of Education, Training and Arts 2004. (n.d.). Student protection.
Retrieved 1 April, 2007, from http://education.qld.gov.au/strategic/eppr/
students/smspr012/.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (n.d.). Excellence in education. Available
from http://www.dfat.gov.au/aib/education.html.
Denzin, N.K. (1970). Sociological methods: A sourcebook. Chicago. Aldine.
Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative
Research. In Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative
research (pp. 1-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis. London: Routledge. In Merriam, S.B. (1998).
qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed). Jossey-Bass.
Diamond, P. (1999). Is corporal punishment contrary to the European Convention of
Human Rights? Education and the Law 11(1), 43-52.
354
Ding, J. (1998). Reflections on human rights. Princeton University Law Journal, 2(2)
Spring.
Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Act No. 135 of 1992. (Commonwealth of Australia)
Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Chapter 50. (England)
Donoghue v. Stephenson (1932) AC 562 at 580. (England)
Donohue v. Copiague Union Free School District, 391 N.E.2d 1352 (N.Y. 1979). (United
States)
Donselaar v. Donselaar (1982) 1 NZLR 97 (CA). (New Zealand)
Douglas, J.D. (1985). Creative interviewing. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. In Fontana, A. &
Frey, J.H. (1994). Interviewing: The art of science. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds).
The handbook of qualitative research (361-376). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education (1977) 1 S.C.R. 241 (S.C.C.). (Canada)
Education Act (Cap. 87, 1957, Rev. Ed. 1985). (Singapore)
Education Act 1989, No. 80. (New Zealand)
Education Act 1990, Act No. 8 of 1990. (New South Wales, Australia)
Education Act 1996, Chapter 56. (England)
Education Act 1997, Chapter 44. (England)
Education Act 2004, Act No. 17 of 2004. (Australian Capital Territory, Australia)
Education Act R.S.O. 1990, C. E.2. (Ontario)
Education Amendment Act 1989, No. 156. (New Zealand)
Education and Training Reform Act 2006, Act No. 24 of 2006. (Victoria, Australia)
Education (General Provisions) Act 2006, Act No. 39 of 2006. (Queensland, Australia)
Education (Grant-In-Aid) Regulations, Education Act (Cap. 87, 1957, Section 61).
(Singapore)
Education in South Africa (2006). (n.d.) SouthAfrica.info. Retrieved 1 February, 2007,
from http://www.southafrica.info/ess_info/sa_glance/education/education.htm.
Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, U.S.C. Pub. L. No. 94-142 (1975).
(United States)
355
Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-476, 104 Stat.
1103 901 (1990). (United States)
Education Otherwise. (n.d.) School is not compulsory. Retrieved 31 January, 2007,
from http://www.education-otherwise.org/Legal/sinc.htm.
Education (Schools) Regulations, Education Act (Cap. 87, 1957, Section 61).
(Singapore)
Education Service Incentive Payment (Connect Plan) Regulations, Education Service
Incentive Payment Act (Cap. 87B, 2002). (Singapore)
Education Standards Act 2001, No. 88. (New Zealand)
Education (Stand-down Suspension, Exclusion, and Expulsion) Rules 1999 (New
Zealand)
Education Today Newsletter 2004. (n.d.) Learning to live together in South Africa.
Retrieved 31 January, 2007, from http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.phpURL_ID=27740&URL_ DO=DO_ TOPIC&URL_ SECTION=201.html.
Employment Equity Act, 1998 (No. 55 of 1998). (South Africa)
Employment of Educators Act, 1998 (No. 76 of 1998). (South Africa)
European Convention on Human Rights 1950. Available from http://www.hri.org/
docs/ECHR50.html.
Evans, K.R. (1993). The law of defamation in Singapore and Malaysia (2nd ed).
Butterworths Asia.
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, Title V, Sec. 513 of Pub. L. No. 93380, 20 U.S.C. 1232g (1974). (United States)
Federal Tort Claims Act 1946, Title IV, Pub. L. No. 79-601, 60 Stat. 842, 28 U.S.C.
1346(b) and 28 U.S.C. 26712680 (1946). (United States)
Films Act (Cap. 10, 1981, Rev. Ed. 1998). (Singapore)
Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., Stellman, L., & K. Cynthia (2003). Teachers and the law (6th
ed). Pearson Education Group, Inc.
Fitzgerald v. Northcote (1865) 2 F & F 656. (England)
Fleming v. Greene (1907) 13 A.L.R. 185. (Australia)
Fontana, A. & Frey, J.H. (1994). Interviewing: The art of science. In N.K. Denzin &
Y.S. Lincoln (Eds). The handbook of qualitative research, 361-376. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
356
Fraser, E.C. (2003). Teachers rights, responsibilities and legal liabilities (Revised
Edition). Monograph of the Alberta Teachers Association. (Problems in Education
Series, 7).
Freedom of Information Act 2000, Chapter 36. (England)
Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. New York: Free Press, cited
in Reich, S. (1998). What is globalization? Working paper #261, December 1998,
Kellogg Institute.
Furniss, C. (2000). Bullying in schools: Its not a crime is it? Education and the Law
12(1), 9-29.
Ghai, Y. (1999). Rights, social justice, and globalization in East Asia. In Bauer & Bell,
(Ed), The East Asian challenge for human rights (pp. 241-263). Cambridge University
Press.
Giddens, A. (1999). `Globalisation, Lecture 1 of 1999 BBC Reith Lectures, BBC News
Online Network, Homepage: 1-6. In Crossley, M. & Watson, K. (2003). Comparative and
international research in education globalization, context and difference. Routledge
Falmer.
Giles, W.H. (1988) Schools and students. Legal aspects of administration. The
Carswell Co. Ltd.
Gillick v. West Norfolk and Wishech Area Health Authority and the Department of
Health and Social Security (1985) UKHL 7. (England)
Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children. (n.d.) Global progress
2007. Retrieved 4 February, 2008, from http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/
pages/frame.html and http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress
/reports/australia.html.
Gonzales v. McEuen (C.D. Cal 1977) 435 F. Supp 460. (United States)
Gopinathan, S. (1995). Globalisation and education policy: Bringing the state back in.
Paper presented at the Globalisation and Learning Conference, New College,
Oxford, (September).
Gopinathan, S. (2001). Globalisation, the state and education policy in Singapore. In
Tan J., Gopinathan, S., How, W.K. (Ed) (2001). Challenges facing the Singapore
education system today (pp. 3-17). Prentice Hall.
Gopinathan, S. & Sharpe, L. (2001). The teacher is the key: Professionalism and the
strategic state. In E. Thomas (Ed). Teacher education: Dilemmas and prospects (pp.
23-32). London: Kogan.
357
Gopinathan, S. & Sharpe, L. (2003). Remaking the developmental state: Singapore
educations role in the risk society. Paper presented at the Research In and On the
Classroom Conference, Educational Research Association of Singapore, Singapore
November).
Gorn, S. (1997). What do I do when: The answer book on individualized education
programs. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications. In Yell, M.L. & Katsiyannis, A. (2001). Legal
issues. Preventing School Failure, 45(2), 82-88.
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975). (United States)
Govender, S. (2003, April 20). Teachers to receive report cards. Sunday Times, South
Africa. Retrieved 11 November, 2003, from http://www.suntimes.co.za/2003/04/20/
politics/politics03.asp.
Government of Malaysia & Ors v. Jumat Bin Mahmud & Anor (1977) 2 MLJ, 103.
(Malaysia)
Greenwold, J. (2000). Lawyers in the classroom: The new law of educational
negligence. Education and the Law 12(4), 246-257.
Gregory, J. (2007, November 30). Girls laugh over disabled attack. Courier Mail,
Queensland. Retrieved 17 December, 2007, from http://www.news.com.au/
couriermail/story/0,023739, 22848376-952,00.html.
Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap. 122, 1935, Rev. Ed. 1985). (Singapore)
Gubrium, J. & Holstein, J. (2002). From individual interview to interview society. In J.
Gubrium and J. Holstein (Eds), Handbook of interview research: Context and method.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, U.S.C. Pub. L. 103-382, Title I, 101, 198 Stat. 3907
(1994). (United States)
Hallak, J (2000). Globalisation and its impact on education. In Mebrahtu, et al, (Ed).
Globalisation, educational transformation and societies in transition. Symposium
Books, 21 40.
Harbord, G & Crafter G (2000). Todays teacher caught in the crusher. Paper
Conference: The Law: Sword or Shield?, Adelaide (13-15 July).
Haines v. Warren (1987) Aust Torts Reports, 80-115; New South Wales Court of Appeal.
Harris, E. (1997). Family law and the school. In Edwards, J. at el. (Ed). Australian
schools and the law (1st ed, pp. 185-208). LBC Information Services.
Harris, N. (2000). Education law: Excluding the child. Education and the Law 12(1), 3146.
358
Harris, N. (2002). The legislative response to indiscipline in schools in England and
Wales. Education and the Law 14(1-2), 57-76.
Harrison & Harrison v. Stevenson (1981) (unreported). In Education Otherwise. School
is not compulsory. Retrieved 31 January, 2007, from http://www.educationotherwise.org/Legal/sinc.htm.
Hay-Mackenzie, F. (2002). Tackling the bullies: In the classroom and in the staffroom.
Paper presented at the Australia and New Zealand Education Law Association 11th
Annual Conference: Legal Risk Management Safety Security & Success In Education,
Brisbane (2-4 October), 119-159.
Hay-Mackenzie, F. & Wilshire, K. (2002). Harm without damages? A schools liability
for personal injury in New Zealand. Australia and New Zealand Education Law
Association, 7(1), 39 -64.
Health and Safety At Work Act 1974, Chapter 37. (England)
Health and Safety Employment Amendment Act 2002, No. 86 (New Zealand)
Held, D. & McGrew, A. (n.d.). Globalisation. Retrieved 18 June, 2004, from
http://www. polity.co.uk/ global/globocp.htm
Hoffman v. Board of Education, 400 N.E.2d 317 (N.Y. 1979). (United States)
Hole v. Williams (1910) S.R. (N.S.W.) 638. (Australia)
Hopkins, A. (1996). Liability for careless teaching: Should Australians follow the
Americans or the British?. Journal of Educational Administration 34(4), 39-59.
Hopkins (Guardian ad litem of) v. Mission School District No. 75 (1998) BCJ No. 568
(BCSC). (Canada)
House, R.M. & Pinyuchon, M. (1998). Counseling Thai Americans: An emerging need.
Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 26, 194-204. In Mathews, R.
(2000). Cultural patterns of South Asian and Southeast Asian Americans. Intervention
in School and Clinic, 36(2), 101-104.
Hudson, F. (2008, March 16). Father wants refund on Brighton Grammar School fees.
Sunday Herald Sun, Australia. Retrieved 18 March, 2008, from http://www.news.
com.au/story/0,23599,23382416-2,00.html.
Human Rights Act 1993, No. 82. (New Zealand)
Human Rights Act 1998, Chapter 42. (England)
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986, Act No. 125 of 1986.
(Commonwealth of Australia)
359
Hwang, M. & Chan, A. (2001). Singapore. In Henry, M. (Ed). International privacy,
publicity and personality laws. Reed Elsevier (UK) Ltd, 355-380.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, Pub. L. No.
105-17, 111 Stat. 37 (1997). (United States)
Information Commissioners Office. (n.d.) Notice to Schools. Freedom of Information
Act 2000 Statutory duties for schools. Retrieved 12 July, 2006, from
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/
practical_application/ freedom_of_information_ statutory_duties_for_schools.pdf.
Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario (n.d.). A mini guide to Ontarios
Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (1998). Retrieved 20
February, 2007, from http://www.ipc.on.ca/images/Resources/up-mini_m_e.pdf.
Ingraham v. Wright (1977) 430 U.S. 651. (United States)
Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001, No. 49. (New Zealand)
Jackson, J. & Varnham, S. (2007). Law for educator: School and university law in
Australia. Lexis Nexis Butterworths: Australia.
Jacobi v. Griffiths, (1999), 2 S.C.R. 570, 1999 CanLII 693 (S.C.C.). (Canada)
Janesick, V. L. (1994). The dance of qualitative research design: Metaphor,
methodolatry, and meaning. In Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.) Handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 209-219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jaster v. Professional Conduct Committee (n.d.). In Anderson, S. & Fraser, S. (2002).
Protecting our Students (and their Teachers too). A Canadian perspective. Paper
Conference: Legal Risk Management Safety Security & Success In Education, Brisbane
(2-4 October), 183-206.
Jeffrey v. London CC (1954) 52 LGR 521. (England)
John R. v. Oakland Unified School District, 769 P.2d 948 (Cal. 1989). (United States)
Juvenile Justice Act 1992, Act No. 44 of 1992. (Queensland, Australia)
Kahn, R.L. & Cannell, C.F. (1983). The dynamics of interviewing: Theory, technique
and cases. Malabar, FL: Krieger. In May, T. (2001). Social research: Issues, methods
and process (3rd ed). Open University Press.
Kawasaki aims to protect children's rights (2001, January 10). The Daily Yomiuri
(Tokyo).
Kaye, T. (2003). What is the legal status of school support staff? Education Law
Update, Issue 34, October, 3-4, 10.
360
Koh, A. (2004). Singapore education in new times: Global/local imperatives.
Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 25(3), 335-349.
Koh, Y. (2003, July 7). Govt schools to pay fees for photocopying. The Straits Times,
Singapore.
Kowalski, T.J. & Reitzug, U.C. (1993). Contemporary school administration: An
introduction. New York: Longman. In Stewart, D.J. (1996). School principals and the
law: A study of the legal knowledge needed and held by principals in government
schools in Queensland. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of
Technoloy, Brisbane, Australia.
Knott, A. (1997a). Teachers and the management of legal risk. In Edwards, J. at el.
(Ed). Australian schools and the law (1st ed, pp. 3-20). LBC Information Services.
Knott, A (1997b). Suspension and expulsion from school. In Edwards, J. at el. (Ed).
Schools and the law (1st ed, PP.209-219). LBC Information Services.
L (a minor), Re (2003) UKHL 9. (England)
L v. Minister for Education for the State of Queensland . Queensland AntiDiscrimination Tribunal No. H39 of 1995. (Australia)
La Morte, M. W.(1999). School law (6th ed). Allyn and Bacon.
Lee, H.L. (1997). National education. Ministry of Education (Singapore) website.
Retrieved May 17, 2004, from http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/1997/170597.htm. In
Koh, A. (2004). Singapore education in new times: Global/local imperatives.
Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 25(3), 340.
Lee, H.L. (2004, January 7). I have no doubt our society must open up further. The
Straits Times, Singapore.
Lee, K.Y. (1994, October 6). Confucian values helped singapore prosper. The Straits
Times, 6 October. In Gopinathan (2001). Globalisation, the state and education policy
in Singapore. In Tan J., Gopinathan, S., How, W.K. (Ed) (2001). Challenges facing the
Singapore education system today, 3-17. Prentice Hall.
Lee, R. (2003, June 12). Remake Spore? Start with yourself first; take the lead and
dont always rely on the govt. The Straits Times, Singapore.
Leonard, M. (2003). Interviews. In Miller, R.L. & Brewer, J.D. The A-Z of social
research: A dictionary of key social science research concepts (pp. 166-171). London:
Sage.
Lim, L. & Tan, J. Addressing disability in educational reforms: A force for renewing the
vision of Singapore 21, in Tan J., Gopinathan, S., How, W.K. (Ed) (2001) Challenges
facing the Singapore education system today (1st ed). Prentice Hall.
Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
361
Lipset, S.M. (1980). Political man. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Lister v. Hesley Hall (2002) 1 AC 215. (England)
Little, D. (n.d.). Human rights, east and west. Essay written for the United States
Institute of Peace. Retrieved 18 June, 2004, from http://www.usip.org/religionpeace/
rehr/ eastwest.html.
Lomax, P. (1994). The narrative of an educational journey or crossing the track.
Kingston-upon-Thames: Kingston University.
Low, L. (2002). Globalisation and the political economy of Singapores policy on
foreign talent and high skills. Journal of Education and Work, 15(4), 409-425.
Lowe, C. (2002). Teachers rights, duties and responsibilities (6th ed). Croner.CCH
Group Limted.
Lui, T.Y. (2007). Teachers workload and assessment of teachers. Financial Year 2007
Committee of Supply Debate. Retrieved 14 June, 2006, from http://www.moe.gov.sg/
speeches/2007/ sp20070307f.htm.
Lyes v. Middlesex County Council (1962), 61 LGR 443. (England)
M and R v. S and Board of Trustees Palmerston North Boys High School (1990) HC:
Palmerston North, CP: 302 and 305 5/12/90. (New Zealand)
MacKay, A.W & Dickinson G.M. (1998). Beyond the careful parent tort liability in
education. Emond Montgomery Publications.
Maithufi, I.P. (1997). The South African Schools Act of 1996: A break with the past.
Retrieved from http://www.info.gov.za/acts/1996/a84-96.pdf.
Mansell v. Griffiths (1908) 1 KB 160, 947. (England)
Marr, N. & Field, T. (2001). Bullycide, death at playtime. (Success Unlimited, Didcot,
Oxfordshire, Great Britain 2001, 256). In Hay-Mackenzie, F. (2002). Tackling the
bullies: In the classroom and in the staffroom. Paper presented at the Australia and
New Zealand Education Law Association 11th Annual Conference: Legal Risk
Marshall, C. & Rossman, G.B. (1995). Designing qualitative research (2nd ed). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage.
Mathews, R. (2000). Cultural patterns of South Asian and Southeast Asian Americans.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 36(2), 101-104.
362
Matodzi, M.E. (2000). Discipline as an aspect of learner development: Implications
for whole school development. Unpublished M.Ed. mini-dissertation, RAU. 31 May. In
Rossouw, J.P. & Rossouw, M.C. (2002). Learner and educator conduct as determiners
for a secure learning environment in South African schools. Paper presented at the
Australia and New Zealand Education Law Association 11th Annual Conference: Legal
Risk Management Safety Security & Success In Education, Brisbane (2-4 October), 255267.
May, T. (2001). Social research: Issues, methods and process (3rd ed). Open University
Press.
McBride, N. & Bagshaw R. (2000 -2001). Tort law. Pearson Education Limited.
McClain, C. V. (2002). Governance and legislation in South Africa: A contemporary
overview. Disability World, 12. Retrieved 14 November, 2003, from http://www.
disabilityworld.org/01-03_02/gov/southafrica.shtml.
Mckay v. Board of Govan School Unit No. 29 of Saskatchewan (1968), 68 D.L.R. (2d)
519 (S.C.C.). (Canada)
McLaren Transport Ltd v. Sommerville (1996) 3 NZLR 424. (New Zealand)
Menacker, J. (1987) School law theoretical and case perspectives. Prentice-Hall.
Meredith, P. (2000). Editorial comment: Legal liability for educational failure.
Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education
(2nd ed). Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S.B. (2002). The nature of qualitative inquiry in qualitative research in
practice examples for discussion and analysis. Jossey-Bass.
Miller, J. & Glassner, B. (1997). The inside and outside: Finding realities in interviews.
In Silverman, D. (Ed) Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice. London;
Sage, 99-112.
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972) 348 F.Supp. 866 (D.D.C.)
(United States)
Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E. & Alexander, L. (1995). In-depth interviewing:
Principles, techniques, analysis (2nd ed.). Sydney: Addison Wesley Longman. In Rapley,
T. (2004). Interviews. In Seale C., Gobo G., Gubrium J.F. & Silverman D. (Ed) (2004)
Qualitative research practice, 15-34. London: Sage.
Minister for Education v. Maunsell (1923) 27 W.A.L.R. 156. (Australia)
Ministry of Education. (1998). Ministry of Educations response to the external
curriculum review report. Retrieved 25 July, 2004, from http://www.moe.
gov.sg/press/1998/ 980321.htm.
363
Ministry of Education. (2000a). Report of the committee on compulsory education.

Singapore: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (2000b). Principals handbook 2002. Singapore: Ministry of
Education.
Ministry of Education. (2002). Teachers handbook 2002. Singapore: Ministry of
Education.
Minister of Education and Culture (House of Delegates) v. Azel and Another (1995) (1)
SA 30 (A). (South Africa)
Ministry of Education (New Zealand) 2006. (n.d.). The responsibility of boards of
trustees for the personal safety of students in schools. Retrieved 18 March, 2007,
from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documented
=3159&data=l.
Ministry of Education (Singapore) (n.d.). Education path. Available from
http://www.moe.gov.sg/specialeducation/Education%20Path%202003.htm
Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap. 184, 1906, Rev. Ed.
1997). (Singapore)
Morse, J.M. (1994). Critical issues in qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Moser, C. & Kalton, G. (1983). Survey methods in social investigation. London:
Heinemann. In May, T. (2001). Social research: Issues, methods and process (3rd ed).
Open University Press.
Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act 1990, Chapter F.31.
(Ontario)
Nadarajan, B. (2003, October 4). 'Bullied' student beaten up in bid to 'settle' quarrel.
The Straits Times, Singapore.
National Education Policy Act, 1996 (No. 27 of 1996). (South Africa)
New South Wales v. Lepore; Samin v. Queensland; Rich v. Queensland [2003] HCA 4 (6
February 2003). (Australia)
Ng, J. (2004, February 18). MOE: School right to make police report over porn VCDs.
The Straits Times, Singapore.
Nickel, T. (15 July, 2003). Chewing gum and education. Transnational Education.
Retrieved 17 November, 2003, from http://transnationaled.blogspot.com/200307
_13_transnationaled_ archive.html.
364
Nirmala, M. (2004, February 28). Principals free to take decisions, says Tharman. The
Norman v. Inner London Education Authority (1974) Times, 14 December. (England)
Ntuane, L. (2007). South Africa: NW education dept to assist learners. Retrieved 20
March, 2007, from http://allafrica.com/stories/200701300637.html.
Oakley, A. (1981). Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms?, In H. Roberts (Ed).
doing feminist research. London: Routledge. In Rapley, T. (2004). Interviews. In Seale
C., Gobo G. , Gubrium J.F. & Silverman D. (Ed) (2004) Qualitative research practice,
15-34. London: Sage.
Occupiers Liability Act 1957, Chapter 31. (England)
Occupiers Liability Act 1984, Chapter 3. (England)
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. (n.d.) Fact sheet. Retrieved 25 June,
2006, from http://www.privcom.gc.ca/fs-fi/02_05_d_25_e.asp.
OHCHR (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights). (n.d.) Fact sheet no. 2
(Rev. 1), The International Bill of Human Rights. Retrieved 16 June, 2004 from
http://www.unhchr.ch/ html/menu6/2/ fs2.htm.
Oh, B.S. (n.d.). Harmonizing international human rights norms and East Asian cultural
values. Electronic Resource Centre for Human Rights Education. Retrieved 18 June,
2004, from http://erc.hrea.org/library/curriculum_methodology/HRE-inAsia2/chapters5.html.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2007, October 4). Progressive discipline and promoting
positive student behaviour. Retrieved 4 February, 2008, from
http://www.searchontario. gov.on.ca/cgi-bin/e_search_results.pl? offset=0&owner_id
=edu&language=en&collection =50800edutcu&query=progressive+discipline&x=6&y=12.
Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c.12. (Ontario)
Oosthuizen, I.J. (2002). Limitations to the indemnification of a minors right to
recourse. Paper presented at the Australia and New Zealand Education Law Association
11th Annual Conference: Legal Risk Management Safety Security & Success In
Education, Brisbane (2-4 October), 175-181.
P v. National Association of School Masters/Union of Women Teachers (2003) UKHL 8.
(England)
Palfreyman, D. (2001). Suffer little children: The evolution of the standard reasonably
expected in the duty of care to prevent physical injury on school premises. Education
and the Law 13(3), 227-234.
Parliamentary Debates. (2000, October 9). Singapore, official report. Ninth
Parliament. Session 2. Volume 72. Sitting 9. Column 838-860.
365
Parmly, M.E. (2001). Country reports on human rights practices. DISAM Journal of
International Security Assistance Management, 23(3), 51-60.
Parry, G. & Parry A.M. (2000). Implications of the Human Rights Act (1998) for schools.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Penal Code (Cap. 224, 1872, Rev. Ed. 1985). (Singapore)
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
(1972) 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa.) (United States)
People v. Levisen (1950) 404 Ill. 574, 90 N.E.2d 213, 14 A.L.R.2d. 1364 (Sup.Ct.1950).
(United States)
Peter W v. San Francisco Unified School District (1976) 131 Cal. Rptr. 854 (Cal. Ct.
App.). (United States)
Phelps v. London Borough of Hillingdon, Anderton v. Clwyd County Council, Jarvis v.
Hampshire County Council, and Re G (a minor) (2000) UKHL 47. (England)
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) 268 U.S. 510. (United States)
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) 163 U.S. 537. (United States)
Pretorius, C. (2002, October 6). Teachers now obligated to report sex abuse by peers.
Sunday Times, South Africa. Retrieved 11 November, 2003, from http://www.
suntimes.co.za/2002/10/06/politics/pol04.asp.
Primary school streaming to be replaced by subject-based banding (2006, September
28). Channelnewsasia, Singapore. Retrieved 15 October, 2006, from http://www.
channelnewsasia. com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/232984/1/.html.
Privacy Act 1993, No. 28. (New Zealand)
Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 (No. 2 of 2000). (South Africa)
Public Service Commission (Delegation of Disciplinary Functions) Directions,
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1965, Rev. Ed. 1999, Section 116).
(Singapore)
Public Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations, Constitution of the Republic of
Singapore (1965, Rev. Ed. 1999, Section 110). (Singapore)
Purvis v. the State of New South Wales (Department of Education) HREOC Matter No.
98/127. (Australia)
366
Queen v. Castles (2001) High Court of New Zealand, Napier, T14/01. (New Zealand)
R. v. Audet (1996), SCJ No 61; (1996) 2 SCR 171. (Canada)
R. v. Glowatski (2001) BCJ No. 2499 (BCCA), dismissing the appeal of conviction in
(1999) BCJ No. 1278 (BCSC). (Canada)
R. v. Hopley (1860) 2 F & F 202, 175 ER 1024. (England)
R. v. Jones (1986) 2 S.C.R. 284. (Canada)
R. v. Keizer (1983) AJ No. 207 (Alta. CA) (United States)
R. v. Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others; ex parte
Williamson and others (2005) UKHL 15. (England)
R (C) v. Governors of B School (2001) ELR 285. (England)
R (on the application of Begum (by her litigation friend, Rahman)(Respondent) v.
Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School (Appellants) (2006) UKHL 15.
(England)
Race Relations Act 1976, Chapter 74. (England)
Ramsay & Shorten (1996). Education and the law. Reed International Books Australia
Pty Limited trading as Butterworths.
Rapley, T. (2004). Interviews. In Seale C., Gobo G., Gubrium J.R. & Silverman D. (Ed)
(2004) Qualitative research practice, 15-34. London: Sage.
Rao, S.M., Lim, L. & Nam, S.S. (2001). Beliefs and attitudes of pre-service teachers
towards teaching children with disabilities. In Tan J., Gopinathan, S., How, W.K. (Ed)
(2001). Challenges facing the Singapore education system today (1st ed). Prentice Hall.
Rayner, C. (1997). The incidence of workplace bullying. Journal of Community and
Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 7, 199-208, cited in Hay-Mackenzie, F. (2002). Tackling
the bullies: In the classroom and in the staffroom. Paper presented at the Australia
and New Zealand Education Law Association 11th Annual Conference: Legal Risk
Re L (a minor) (2001) EWCA Civ 1199. (England)
Reffell v. Surrey County Council (1964). (England)
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Pub. L. No. 93-112, 87 Stat. 394, U.S.C. 701 (1973).
(United States)
Reich, R. (1992). The work of nations: Preparing ourselves for 21st century capitalism.
New York: Vintage.
367
Reich, S. (1998). What is globalization? Working paper #261, December 1998, Kellogg
Institute.
Relief teacher sacked for slapping boy (2000, March 9). The New Paper, Singapore.
Retrieved 22 April, 2003, from http://www. Corpun.com/sgs00003.htm.
Ribbins, P. & Sherratt, B. (1992) Managing the secondary school in the 1990s: A new
view of headship. Educational Management and Administration, Vol. 20, No. 3, 151161.
Riddell, S. (2003). Devolution and disability equality legislation: The implementation
of part 4 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in England and Scotland. British
Journal of Special Education 30(2), 63-69.
Rossouw, J.P. & Rossouw, M.C. (2002). Learner and educator conduct as determiners
for a secure learning environment in South African schools. Paper presented at the
Australia and New Zealand Education Law Association 11th Annual Conference: Legal
Risk Management Safety Security & Success In Education, Brisbane (2-4 October), 255267.
Rushton, M. (2005, June 10). End discrimination of home-educated children. The
Russo, C.J. & Mawdsley, R.D. (2003). Education law. Law Journal Press. Thousand
Oaks, CA:Sage.
Russo, C.J. & Stewart, D.J. (2001). The place of educational law in the international
community. Educational Law Journal, 2 (1), 18-25.
S v. M and Board of Trustees Auckland Grammar School (1998) HC: Auckland, June
1998. (New Zealand)
S v. Williams and others (1995) (CCT20/94) [1995] ZACC 6; 1995 (3) SA 632. (South
Africa)
Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994 Pub. L. No. 103-382, 40014133, 108 Stat. 3518 (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. 7101-7143 [2000]). (United
States)
Samydorai, S. (2001). Think centre promotes and protects human rights. Retrieved 16
June, 2004, from http://www/thinkcentre.org/article.cfm?Article ID=843.
Sandhu, D.S. (1997). Psychological profiles of Asian and Pacific Islander Americans:
Implications for counseling and psychotherapy. Journal of Multicultural Counseling
and Development, 25, 7-21. In Mathews, R. (2000). Cultural patterns of South Asian
and Southeast Asian Americans. Intervention in school and clinic, 36(2), 101-104.
Schaefer, M.J. (2000). Individuals With Disabilities Education Act: Related services
versus medical services?: [Cedar Rapids Community School District V.Garret F., 119
S. Ct. 992 (1999)]. Washburn Law Journal, 39(2), 143-158.
368
Schmidt, C. (2000). The analysis of semi-structured interviews. In Flick, et al, (Ed). A

companion to qualitative research. (Translated by Jenner, B. in 2004). London: Sage.
School Act, R.S.A. 1980, Chapter S-3. (Alberta)
School Boards Incorporation Act (Cap. 284A, 1990, Rev. Ed. 1991). (Singapore)
Schools flouting corporal punishment law (2007, February 13). Scoop Independent
News. Retrieved 6 February, 2008, from http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/
PA0702/S00195.htm.
School Standards and Framework Act 1998, Chapter 31. (England)
Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Chapter 65. (England)
Sex Discrimination Act 1984, Act No. 4 of 1984. (Commonwealth of Australia)
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, Chapter 44. (England)
Sexual misconduct of teachers under spotlight (2006, September 26). South African
Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 15 February, 2007, from
http://www.sabcnews.com/ south_africa/education/ 0,2172,135509,00.html.
Sharpe, L. & Gopinathan, S. (2002). After effectiveness: New directions in the
Singapore school system? Journal of Educational Policy, 17(2), 151-166.
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data. Methods for analysing talk, text
and interaction (2nd ed). London: Sage.
Sim, G. (2004, July/August). More legal aid for teachers. The Mentor, Singapore
Teachers Union, 2-3.
Sinclair, R. (2003-2004). Child protection. Research Matters, Issue 16, 23.
Singapore loosens 12-year chewing gum ban. (2004, May 26). Retrieved 16 June, 2004,
from http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/05/25/singapore.gum.ap/.
Singleton, R.A., Straits, B.C. & Straits, M.M. (1993). Approaches to social research (2nd
ed). NY: Oxford University Press.
Smith, J.A. (1995). Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis. In Smith,
J.A., Harr, R. & Langenhove, L.V. (Ed.) Rethinking methods in psychology. London:
Sage.
South African Council for Educators Act, 2000 (No. 31 of 2000). (South Africa)
South African Human Rights Commission (n.d.). Access to information/PIAP: Deputy
information officers form. Retrieved 25 July, 2006, from http://www.sahrc. org.za/
sahrc_cms/publish/cat_index_30.shtml.
369
South African Schools Act, 1996 (No. 84 of 1996). (South Africa)

Sparks v. Martin (1908) 2 Q.J.P.R. 12 (Sup. Ct.). (Australia)
Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, Chapter 10. (England)
Spickard, J.V. (1999). Human rights, religious conflict, and globalization. Ultimate
values in a new world order. Journal on Multicultural Societies, 1(1), 3-20.
Stafford, N. (2003). The High Court decision in Lepore, Samin, and Rich. Paper
Conference: Balancing Rights in Education, Sydney (1-3 October).
Stafford, N. (2004). What can a school do to ensure student and staff wellbeing and
safety in schools in light of the Australian High Courts decision in Purvis v. State of
NSW. Paper presented at the Australia and New Zealand Education Law Association
13th Annual Conference: Innovation and Internationalisation: pushing the boundaries of
education law, Wellington (22-24 September), 451-466.
Stainton Rogers, W. (1991) Explaining health and illness. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
Stainton Rogers, R. (1995). Q methodology. In Smith, J.A., Harr, R. & Langenhove,
L.V. (Ed.) Rethinking methods in psychology. London: Sage.
Standards for School Premises Regulations, 1959. (England)
Standards for School Premises Regulations, 1972 (SI 1972 No. 2051). (England)
Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behaviour: Q technique and its methodology.
University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Stephenson, W. (1986). Protoconcursus: The concourse theory of communication.
Operant Subjectivity. 9(2), 30-72.
Stewart, D.J. (1994). Compensating students for injuries incurred in school accidents.
Education and the Law, 6(3), 143-151.
Stewart, D.J. (1996a). School principals and the law: A study of the legal knowledge
needed and held by principals in government schools in Queensland. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technoloy, Brisbane, Australia.
Stewart, D.J. (1996b). Principals' knowledge of law affecting schools. Australia &
New Zealand Journal of Law & Education 1(1), 111-129.
Stewart, D.J. (1998a). Schools and the law in Australia: An overview. Liverpool Law
Review, 20(1).
370
Stewart, D.J. (1998b). Legalisation of education: Implications for principals
professional knowledge. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(2).
Stewart, D.J. & Knott, A.E. (2002). Schools, courts and the law. Prentice Hall.
Stewart, D.J., Russo C.J. & Osborne, A.G. (2002). The educational rights of children
with disabilities: Perspectives from Australia and the United States. Education & Law
11(3), 285-317.
Stolz, G. (2008, February 15). Gold Coast teacher cleared after slapping student.
Courier Mail, Australia. Retrieved 15 February, 2008, from http://www.news.com.au/
story/0,23599,23217616-1248,00.html.
Stretch, R. (2003). The duty to report child abuse in France, lessons for England? Child
and Family Law Quarterly 15(2), 139-154.
Supreme Court Act 2003, No. 53. (New Zealand)
Sutton, L.C. (2004). Sexual misconduct: New trends and liability. School Business
Affairs, 11(1), 6-8.
Tan, T. (2004, August 7). Over half of rape victims are young girls. The Straits Times,
Singapore.
Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, cited in, Creswell, J.W. (2002).
Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating qualitative and
quantitative research. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Prentice Hall, 562.
Tay, S.S.C. (1996). Human rights, culture, and the Singapore example. McGill Law
Journal, Vol. 41, 743-780.
Taylor, K.R. (2001). What about legal literacy? Principal Leadership, 2(2), 66-70.
Teaching Profession Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter T-2. (Alberta)
Teh, M.K. & Stott, K. (2006). When is a reinstated pupil not reinstated? Paper
Conference: Keeping People and Property Safe in the Education Environment, Hobart,
(4 6 October 2006).
Teh, M.K. & Stott, K. & Zuzarte, D. (2004). Managing legal risk in schools:
understanding diverse perspectives. Paper presented at the Australia and New
Zealand Education Law Association 13th Annual Conference: Innovation and
Internationalisation: Pushing the Boundaries of Education Law, Wellington (22-24
September), 433-447.
Telecommunications Act (Cap. 323, 1999, Rev. Ed. 2000). (Singapore)
Teo, L. (2003, June 8). Broken vows. The Straits Times, Singapore.
371
The bully pulpit: Post-Columbine, harassment victims take schools to court (2002,
December). Trial. Retrieved 21 April, 2003, from http://www.atla.org/homepage/
triadec02.aspx?print=1.
The Campaign for Freedom of Information. (n.d.) Your rights to personal files.
Retrieved 12 July, 2006, from http://www.cfoi.org.uk/persfilesintro.html.
The Centre for Effective Discipline. (n.d.). Legal reforms worldwide 2008: Discipline
and the law: legal reforms. Retrieved 4 February, 2008, from http://www.
stophitting.com/ and http://www.stophitting.com/laws/legalReform.php.
The Common Law Library No. 8. 1998 (n.d.). Gatley on libel and slander (9th ed).
London Sweet & Maxwell.
The Constitution Act of, 1867, (The British North America Act, 1867) 30 & 31 Victoria,
c. 3.
The Circumcision Reference Library. (n.d.) Declaration of the rights of the child
(1959). Retrieved 25 April, 2007, from http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/UNdeclaration/.
The Heads Legal Guide (CD-ROM). (1999). Croner Electronic.
The Stationery Office 1998 (n.d.). Truancy and social exclusion: Report by the social
exclusion unit, Cm 3957. In Harris, N. (2000). Education law: Excluding the child.
Education and the Law 12(1), 37.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) 393 U.S. 503.
(United States)
Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn v.
Hadba (2005) HCA 31. (Australia)
U.N. Report on childrens rights urges japan to halt discrimination (2004, January 31).
Mainichi Shimbun, Japan.
United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women 1979. Available from http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/.
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989. (n.d.) Retrieved 19 June,
2004, from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm.
United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). Available
from http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html.
United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966).
Available from http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_cescr.htm.
372
United Nations Press Release (2003, September 26). Committee on the Rights of the
Child considers initial report of Singapore. Retrieved 20 June, 2004, from
http://www.hrea.org/ lists/child-rights/markup/msg00227.html.
United Nations Treaty Collection (2001). Declarations and reservations. Retrieved 19
June, 2004, from http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/treaty15_asp.htm.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Available from http://www.unhchr.
ch/udhr/index.htm.
U.S. Department of State (25 February, 2004). Country reports on human rights
practices 2003. Retrieved 16 June, 2004, from http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/
hrrpt/2003/ 27788pf.htm.
UY v. Attorney General (2007) SGDC 255. (Singapore)
Van Exel, J. & de Graf, G. (2005). Q Methodology: A sneak preview. Retrieved 16 April,
2008, from http://www.jobvanexel.nl.
Vandalism Act (Cap. 341, 1966, Rev. Ed. 1985) (Singapore)
Varnham, S. (1999). Safe or sorry? Rights, responsibilities and retribution the new
three Rs of education in New Zealand? Education and the Law, 11(4), 268-285.
Varnham, S. (2000). Just a harmless pat on the bottom? When may a school be held
liable in respect of peer to peer or teacher to student sexual harassment? Australia
and New Zealand Education Law Association, 5(1), 3452.
Varnham, S. (2001a). Tomorrows schools today legal issues in New Zealand
education. Education and the Law, 13(1), 7786.
Varnham, S. (2001b). Conduct unbecoming: The dilemma of a schools responsibility in
respect of teacher misconduct towards pupils. Education and the Law, 13(2), 109125.
Varnham, S. (2001c). The Education Amendment Bill (No. 2) school standards and
safety in New Zealand. Education and the Law, 13(2), 163171.
Varnham, S. (2002). Mainstreaming or maindumping. Daniels v. the Attorney-General,
equality of access to education for children with special needs in New Zealand. Paper
Conference: Legal Risk Management Safety Security & Success in Education, Brisbane
(2-4 October), 239-253.
Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton (94-590), 515 U.S. 646 (1995). (United States)
Victorian Education Act of 1890 (repealed). (Victoria, Australia)
Waks, L.J. (2003). How globalization can cause fundamental curriculum change: An
American perspective. Journal of Educational Change 4, 383-418.
373
Ward v. Hertfordshire County Council (1970) 1 All ER, 535. (England)
Watson, K. (2000). Globalisation, educational reform and language policy in
transitional societies. In Mebrahtu, et al, (Ed). Globalisation, educational
transformation and societies in transition. Symposium Books, 41-68.
Webb, R. & Vulliamy, G. (2001). The primary teachers role in child protection. British
Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 59-77.
Weiss, R.S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative
interviewing. New York: Free Press. In Rapley, T. (2004). Interviews. In Seale C., Gobo
G., Gubrium J.R. & Silverman D. (Ed) (2004) Qualitative research practice, 15-34.
London: Sage.
Wenham, D (1999). Civil liability of schools, teachers and pupils for careless
behaviour. Educational Management & Administration, 27(4), 365-374.
White v. Weller (1959), Qd.R. 192 (Sup. Ct.). (Australia)
Whitney v. City of Worcester (1977) 366 N.E.2d. 1210 (Mass. 1977). (United States)
Whitney, B. (1993). The Children Act and schools. London, Kogan Page. In Webb, R. &
Vulliamy, G. (2001). The primary teachers role in child protection. British Educational
Research Journal, 27(1), 60.
Williams v. Eady (1893) 10 TLR 41 CA. (England)
Williams, P. (1995). Educational negligence: An Australian perspective. Working Paper
Series, School of Business Law. Curtin University, 95.10, October. In Stewart, D.J.
(1996a). School principals and the law: A study of the legal knowledge needed and
held by principals in government schools in Queensland. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Queensland University of Technoloy, Brisbane, Australia.
Wittgenstein, L. (1971). Philosophical investigations (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
In Brown, S. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political
science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Woodhouse, S. (2004). The status of children in Singapore regional and global
benchmarks. Forum on the Best Interests of Children, Singapore, (January).
Womens Charter (Cap. 353, 1961, Rev. Ed. 1997). (Singapore)
Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis. A comparative and
critical introduction. London, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wray v. Essex County Council (1936) All ER Annotated (Vol. 3), 97. (England)
Wyke v. Polk County School Board, 129 F.3d 560, 569 (11th Cir. 1997). (United States)
X v. Bedfordshire (1995) 2 AC 633. (England)
374
X Pte Ltd v. CDE (1992) 2 SLR 996. (Singapore)

Yell, M.L. & Katsiyannis, A. (2001). Legal issues. Preventing School Failure, 45(2), 8288.
Yeo, W. (2006, October 23). More govt support for special needs children. The Straits
Times, Singapore.
375
Appendix 1A
List of Statements
1. We should advise young teachers early in their careers about education law, e.g. during
induction in the school.
2. MOE should give clear advice and publicise it so that schools can call up anytime. We
need a legal Helpdesk.
3. No need for overkill. A simple action, like a talk from a lawyer will suffice. Better not
to spend too much time on it.
4. All appointment holders (P, VP, HODs, STs, DM, AM etc) should receive instruction or
training in legal matters affecting the school.
5. We should develop HR skills and nurture good relationships with students, parents and
teachers.
6. Everything is in the Principals Handbook, so principals should be familiar with it.
7. Keep the best interests of the children at heart and you wont encounter problems.
Even if you do, a judge would always understand your intention.
8. The government should introduce legislation to prevent schools, principals and teachers
from being sued.
9. Schools should identify hazards and assess the risk of accidents occurring. The risk
assessment should be recorded.
10. An MOE-sponsored conference or Principals Forum should be organised for Ps and VPs
on the legal aspects of their work.
11. The most important attribute in dealing with the law is experience. Over the years,
experience teaches you how to cope.
12. It is mainly PE, science lab and workshop teachers who should have law knowledge,
because that is where serious accidents can occur.
13. If MOE wants us to know about legal issues, they should arrange training. In the end,
they carry the can.
14. Vet teaching applicants more carefully and that would reduce legal risks.
15. Schools should adopt Standard Operating Procedures to cover all situations.
16. Often, its the students who start things off. We should remind them about things like
fighting, bullying etc and the consequences they face.
17. We need training in mediation skills: parents argue with teachers; teachers with
teachers; parents with parents etc.
18. NIE should include law in its leadership programmes, like LEP and DDM.
19. Lets go back to the days when what the school said and did was indeed the law.
Parents respected the school. Lets leave the law to lawyers.
20. If the school knows where there are problem areas (e.g. PE, labs, bullying places) we
should increase the monitoring.
21. With more involvement from outsiders (e.g. parents and coaches) schools should
publish and communicate safe working practice procedures.
22. No worries! Singapore is not like other countries. The government can step in and stop
any nonsense. Look what happened to the SIA pilots!
23. There must be constant reinforcement. Principals should remind teachers of the things
they do (or fail to do) that could have legal implications.
376
24. Hold staff meetings and student assemblies to review rules that deal with student
safety.
25. A good strategy is procrastination or play for time. This gives time to find out and
consult. Sometimes, people even drop the issue.
26. The MOE should prevent the press from getting hold of stories about schools.
27. Having the right teachers helps to avoid legal issues. We should get rid of instructors
and even teachers who can land us in hot water.
28. NIE should have legal instruction in its pre-service and perhaps in-service courses.
29. Step up supervision measures in the school.
30. We should keep in regular contact with parents, keeping them informed, then they
wont create difficulties.
31. Whenever a legal issue arises, consult the MOEs legal adviser. We have one now, you
know.
32. Principals should be the first ones to be given law knowledge. Then they should
communicate to relevant others in the school.
33. We should draw on the help of lawyer friends or alumni if legal matters arise.
34. The principal should spell out behaviour policies and disciplinary procedures on a
regular basis to teachers, pupils and others.
35. This is all a management issue. Use common sense, be sensitive and honest, and the
risks will be minimised.
36. The cluster superintendent should hold a workshop every so often for principals and
other officers on relevant legal issues.
37. We should give legal knowledge to teachers first. If they get things right, there is less
need for principals to be involved.
38. Parents should be made to sign a statement saying they will not issue threats and cause
trouble for the school.
39. All teachers should be trained and involved in routine inspections of school grounds and
equipment. These prevent problems of injuries to kids.
40. What we do now is adequate: we deal with simple matters. If uncertain, we consult
superintendent; for contentious things, we refer to MOE.
41. The Teachers Handbook contains the dos and donts. Teachers should be made to
read it from time to time.
42. We must have strong leaders in schools, leaders who will give clear instructions and
ensure compliance.
43. Make the school a risk-free zone. Do everything by the book. Keep all written
messages; note conversations; ensure a procedure for everything.
44. There are human resource risks. Schools should look after the welfare of teachers.
45. The government should set up legislative standards for problematic things like staffstudent ratios for various hazardous activities.
46. Rules are the key: craft them well and write them down.
47. We educators must develop awareness of correct courses of action, because TV and
forum pages make people aware of their rights.
377
Appendix 1B
Instructions to participants in the study
Schools and the Law: Avoiding Legal Risk
Question on which this research is based: What should be done in our schools to ensure we
dont encounter legal difficulties or to minimize the risk of legal challenge?
Instructions
This is something like a board game. It is easy if you follow these simple instructions.
You should have a pack of cards and a grid. On each card is a statement about what could be
done to help schools avoid legal risk. There are 47 statements. Some statements you may
agree with; others you may disagree with. Your task is simply to arrange the cards on the grid.
1
Spend five minutes or so having a quick read through. Don't stop. Just keep reading.
But, as you do so, throw the cards onto three piles:
On the right pile, stack the cards containing the statements with which, at first glance, you
agree that those are the most effective ideas.
On the left pile, stack those cards containing statements with which you disagree OR which you
think are the least effective ideas.
On the centre pile, simply stack:
NB
those cards with which you neither agree nor disagree;

those that you are not sure where to place;
or those which you don't understand.
It doesn't matter if the piles are of different sizes.
2
Now, pick up the right pile. Choose the TWO statements with which you agree most
strongly or that you think are the best strategies. Place them in the two boxes at the extreme
right side of the grid. (It does not matter which goes at the top.)
3
Pick up the left pile. Choose the TWO statements with which you disagree the most or
that you think are the least effective strategies. Place them in the two boxes at the extreme
left side of the grid.
4
Go to the right pile again, and now choose the next three statements with which you
strongly agree, placing them in the three boxes in the second column from the right.
Go to the left pile, and choose the next three statements with which you disagree.
6
By now, you should have got the hang of it. Just keep working in towards the centre of
the grid. Incidentally, sooner or later, you are going to run out of cards in the left and right
piles, so you will have to start working on the centre pile when that happens. There will be
378
many statements (from the centre pile) about which you are ambivalent. These go near to the
centre of the grid.
7
When you have filled the grid, look at your arrangement and move any statements you
want. You have finished the sort only when you are completely satisfied.
8
Finally, please use the glue provided to paste your statements onto the grid. Please
make sure your name is included so that we can clarify anything with you if we need to.
Your questions answered

Why do you need my name?
In case we need to interview you later. Some peoples opinions load highly on a given factor
after the analysis, and we need help from them in understanding the point of view.
Will anyone be able to associate my responses with me?

Only the researchers. We keep to a strict code of ethics that prevents us from identifying you
in any papers arising from this research.
Will I be able to find out the results of this research?

Yes. We shall make the findings available to all those who have taken part.
Is there a right answer in completing this grid?

No. All answers are correct. What we are trying to do is to understand the complex opinions
principals and senior officers have about this issue.
Some of the statements seem very odd! Where did you get them?
All sorts of places some we obtained from principals; some from other education officers; and
others were obtained from books and newspapers. Wherever possible, we have tried to retain
the original wording for authenticity.
379
Appendix 2A
Research conducted by Ms Teh Mui Kim

Schools and the law: A study of the legal knowledge held and needed by
principals in Singapore schools with implications on the legal responsibilities
of schools.
Background information on Principals to be interviewed
QUESTIONNAIRE (Please mark the appropriate boxes)
1.
How long have you been in the education profession?

2.
16 to 20 years
above 20 years
5 years or less
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
above 15 years
How long have you been a principal or the equivalent (e.g. inspector,
superintendent)?

4.
11 to 15 years
During this time, how many years did you spend as a classroom teacher?

3.
10 years or less
5 years or less
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
above 15 years
Please indicate the type(s) of school which you have been principal (including your
present school).

Primary co-ed school

Primary single-sex school
Secondary co-ed school
Secondary single-sex school
Junior college
380
5.
Did you attend the DEA or LEP prior to becoming a principal?

6.
No
Which of the following age groups are you in?

7.
Yes
40 and below
41 to 45
46 to 50
51 to 55
56 and above
Have you held a management or leadership position outside the education

service?

yes
no
If yes, please give brief details:

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
8.
What knowledge do you, as a principal, have of the areas of law that affect your
principalship?

9.
no knowledge
some knowledge
a lot of knowledge
How familiar are you with the Principals Handbook?

not familiar because I do not refer to it

moderately familiar because I do refer to it
very familiar because I almost know it by heart
10. Are you aware of the establishment of the legal department in the Ministry of
Education?

yes
no
11. If the answer to question 10 is yes, are you aware of the functions of the legal
department in the Ministry of Education?

yes
no
381
12. In your experience, have you, or your teachers or your school been involved
in any legal action or threatened legal action concerning:
(a) the use of corporal punishment by teachers against pupils?

yes
no
If yes, please give a brief description:__________________________________

________________________________________________________________
(b) negligence involving the physical welfare of a student?

yes
no

________________________________________________________________
(c) defamation?

yes
no

________________________________________________________________
(d) criminal offences?

yes
no

________________________________________________________________
(e) family law?

yes
no
If yes, please give a brief description: _________________________________

________________________________________________________________
(f)

contracts made with private service providers?

yes
no

________________________________________________________________
382
(g) other areas of law not mentioned above?

yes
no

________________________________________________________________
13.
Are you a member of the STU or any other teaching unions?

14.
yes
no
Are you aware of Singapores position in relation to the United Nations

Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989?

yes
no
383
Appendix 2B
Schools and the law: A study of the legal knowledge held and needed by
principals in Singapore schools with implications on the legal responsibilities
of schools.
Pilot Interview Questions for Principals
1.
As a principal, what do you perceive are the areas of law that affect school administration?
2.
In your view, do you think there is a need for principals to have knowledge of areas of law
that affect their principalship? Why?
3.
In your view, are there any major areas of concern relating to school law that you think are
likely to emerge in Singapore? If so, what are they?
4.
One of the general principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
1989 is that children who are capable of forming their own views shall be given the right to
express their opinions on all matters concerning themselves. How does this principle affect
your role as school principal in the management of students?
5.
In your view, are parents and students more knowledgeable about their legal rights and
more vocal in expressing them now? If so, how does it impact on your leadership in the
school?
6.
In what ways do you find the establishment of the legal department in the Ministry of
Education useful to you in the performance of your job as a principal?
7.
To what extent has the recent Kent Ridge Secondary School porn case made you more
or less anxious about reacting to or handling student infringement incidents?
8.
A primary one student and parent accuse a teacher of inflicting corporal punishment and
throwing the students book in the air. The principal investigated but did not give the
teacher a copy of the report. The teacher is adamant that such an incident did not occur
and sent a lawyers letter to the parent asking for an apology. As a principal, how would
you deal with this situation, and what are the legal issues involved here?
9.
What is your view on shared responsibilities, i.e. is it necessary for teachers and HODs to
have knowledge of school law? Why?
10. Many teachers and principals are of the view that schools should be given some form of
help in avoiding legal trouble. In your view, what forms of help should be given?
11. If you were to attend a workshop on education law or school law, what are the topics you
would like to see cover
384
Appendix 3A
PRINCIPALS QUESTIONNAIRE
Schools and the law: Emerging Legal Issues Internationally with Implications for
school Leaders in Singapore
Background information on Principals to be interviewed
Questionnaire: Please put a tick in the appropriate box(es) of each of the following
questions.
1.
How long have you been in the education profession?

Up to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
16+ years
2.
During this time, how many years did you spend as a classroom teacher?
Up to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
16+ years
3.
During your years of service in the education profession, how long have you spent
in administrative positions:
(a)
as a senior teacher (e.g. head of

department, subject head,
co-ordinator)?
Up to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 years or more
(b)
as a vice-principal?
Up to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 years or more
385
(c)
as a principal?
Up to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 years or more
(d)
in MOE Head Quarters ?
Up to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 years or more
4.
Have you held a management or leadership position outside the education service?
Yes
No
If your response is yes, please provide particulars:
Occupation:
5.
You are
Number of years
female
male
6.
Please indicate the type(s) of school in which you have been principal (including
your present school).
Government primary school
Government-aide primary school
Government secondary school
Government-aided secondary school
Junior College
386
7.
Have you been involved in any in-service courses/workshops specifically designed

to cover legal issues affecting education?
Yes
No
If your response is yes, please provide particulars:
Focus of course:
8.
Length of course:
Please rank below the sources of legal knowledge which have been most influential
in the administrative decisions you have taken as a school principal in relation to
legal matters:
Place a 1 against the most

important source, a 2 against
the next most important source,
and so on. Please leave those
sources that have been of no
significance to you blank.
Principals handbook
Governments instruction manual
In-service courses conducted by NIE
Academy of Principals
Other principals advice
MOEs legal department
Attorney-generals chambers
Talks and seminars by MOE
Mass media
Professional journals
Sharing of experiences (e.g. cluster
meeting, focus group discussions)
Lawyer friends
Others (Please specify):
387
9.
During your period as a school principal, have you noticed any change in the extent
of the law influencing school policies and practices?
Decrease in Influence of Law
No Change
Increase in Influence of Law
Did not notice any influence of
law as a school principal
10.
Please put a tick on each of the boxes where your school has had some involvement
with the following legislation:
(NB: Involvement is defined as you having accessed or utilised the statute or its
regulations or a court decision for some official purpose.)
Children and Young Persons Act
Copyright Act
The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore
Defamation Act
Education (Schools) Regulations (Education Act)
Government Procurement Act
Government Contracts Act
Penal Code
School Boards (Incorporation) Act
Please indicate any other legislation that your school has been involved with:
388
11.
Please indicate, by putting a tick in the appropriate boxes, whether during your
career as an educator, your colleagues or you personally were involved in any legal
action or threatened legal action concerning:
(a)
negligence involving the injury of a student

(physical welfare of a student);
(b)
professional negligence involving poor

Teaching (intellectual welfare of a
(student);
(c)
defamation;
(d)
copyright;
(e)
criminal offences involving students;
(f)
criminal offences involving teachers;
(g)
contractual matters with private vendors;
(h)
others (please specify): _______________

____________________________________
If you have answered yes to any of these items, it would be helpful if you could
provide details of the incident(s).
389
12.
Please indicate, by putting a tick in the appropriate boxes, whether during your
career as an educator, your colleagues or you personally were involved in any
complaints or incidents concerning :
(a)
negligence involving the injury of a student

(physical welfare of a student);
(b)
professional negligence involving poor

Teaching (intellectual welfare of a
(student);
(c)
defamation;
(d)
copyright;
(i)
criminal offences involving students;
(j)
criminal offences involving teachers;
(k)
contractual matters with private vendors;
(l)
others (please specify): _______________

____________________________________
If you have answered yes to any of these items, it would be helpful if you could
provide details of the incident(s).
390
13.
The comment is often heard that teaching is a stressful profession, and especially
so in the light of societal changes. Do you consider that legal matters associated
with school administration:
(a)
cause you stress;

(whether a little or a lot)
Yes
No
(b)
cause you more stress than other

administrative matters;
Yes
No
(c)
are more stressful than in

previous years.
Yes
No
14.
Education law is of emerging relevance to schools in Singapore.

Agree
Disagree
15.
Are you aware of Singapores position in relation to the United Nations Conventions
on the Rights of the Child 1989?
Yes
No
391
Appendix 3B
Interview Questions
1. What do you know about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?
How is the government educating the young about their rights?
E.g. One of the general principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child 1989 is that children who are capable of forming their own views shall be given the
right to express their opinions on all matters concerning themselves. How does this
principle affect your role as school principal in the management of students?
2. (a) When we talk about school law, there is the notion of legal responsibility. How
would you describe this legal duty in relation to students, teachers and parents?
Where does the law come in? How has it changed?
(b) In the past, when schools encounter a legal problem, the problem is quickly
referred to AGs chambers or the MOE or if you are in an aided-school, it is
referred to your legal counsel. The belief is that principals need not know anything
about the law. Do you think the position has changed and if so, in what way?
3. In your view, are parents and students more knowledgeable about their legal rights
and more vocal in expressing them now? (Ask for examples show differences over
the last 5 to 10 years) If so, how does it impact on your leadership in the school?
4. Trends in education law in other countries, particularly England, Canada, Australia,
New Zealand and the U.S.A. have shown that litigation can arise against schools for
various issues such as behaviour management (for example, corporal punishment,
suspension and expulsion), injury to students, bullying, poor teaching and failure to
provide for special needs. Let me now run through these trends in the Singapore
context and perhaps you can comment on how similar issues have arisen in Singapore
and the implications they have for you:
Behaviour management
Injury to students
Bullying
Poor teaching
Failure to provide for special needs
5. Do you think there is a need for principals to have knowledge of areas of law that
affect their principalship? Why?
392
6. (a) What are the major areas of concern relating to education law that you think are
likely to emerge in Singapore?
(b) How will they affect your job as a school leader?
7. Many teachers and principals are of the view that schools should be given some form of
help in avoiding legal trouble. In your view, what forms of help should be given?
393
Appendix 3C
SOURCES OF LEGAL KNOWLEDGE (In order of

Importance)
PARTICIPANTS
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
Principal's handbook
Government's Instruction Manual
In-service by NIE
Academy of Principals
Other principal's advice
MOE's legal department
Attorney-general's chambers
Talks by MOE
Mass media
Professional journals
Sharing of experiences
Lawyer friends
Singapore Teachers' Union
School board advisers
6
11
5
8
1
4
9
3
7
10
2
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
1
NA
2
NA
NA
3
NA
NA
4
NA
NA
NA
9
10
6
11
4
3
2
7
2
8
5
1
NA
NA
1
NA
5
NA
3
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
4
6
NA
NA
1
NA
NA
NA
4
5
NA
3
NA
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
3
NA
7
NA
8
1
NA
6
NA
NA
4
2
5
NA
1
2
NA
NA
NA
4
3
6
NA
5
7
NA
NA
1
1
7
4
8
2
5
10
6
11
9
3
1
NA
NA
4
2
3
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
NA
5
NA
NA
NA
1
3
NA
NA
NA
4
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
394
Appendix 4
PQMethod2.11
Principals and the law: Avoiding legal risk
Path and Project Name: C:\PQMETHOD\PROJECTS/lawproj
Correlation Matrix Between Sorts
SORTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Law1
Law2
Law3
Law4
Law5
Law6
Law7
Law8
Law9
Law10
Law11
Law12
Law13
Law14
Law15
Law16
Law17
Law18
Law19
Law20
Law21
Law22
Law23
Law24
Law25
Law26
Law27
Law28
Law29
Law30
Law31
Law32
Law33
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
100 40 21 22 23 21 23 35
7
5 23 20 34 34 33 29 17
8 -9 -5 37 18 27 50 32 19 23 31 22 36
40 100 53 73 52 47 37 67 31 56 49 55 60 49 48 55 48 62 44 51 54 37 53 40 42 52 61 62 57 60
21 53 100 63 60 54 33 59 46 63 39 62 49 53 34 46 54 59 41 41 45 47 67 42 35 70 62 61 63 63
22 73 63 100 55 53 40 69 54 60 51 73 52 61 51 58 59 71 47 73 51 50 64 49 45 65 67 71 73 64
23 52 60 55 100 63 18 61 56 55 50 37 46 49 36 44 45 64 40 53 51 58 53 46 42 68 45 44 43 55
21 47 54 53 63 100 47 55 58 43 51 36 57 50 47 38 55 43 16 41 50 59 55 52 56 66 62 54 51 68
23 37 33 40 18 47 100 51 37 36 41 29 57 33 49 45 53 11 18 22 52 38 50 46 54 40 53 54 52 45
35 67 59 69 61 55 51 100 62 62 53 52 60 55 47 64 62 56 49 55 57 60 67 57 54 61 60 73 64 65
7 31 46 54 56 58 37 62 100 51 38 36 46 58 45 41 57 53 39 57 49 66 50 52 52 68 45 49 51 54
5 56 63 60 55 43 36 62 51 100 35 66 37 44 47 54 58 70 57 55 39 47 61 31 28 71 54 60 57 52
23 49 39 51 50 51 41 53 38 35 100 23 58 47 32 48 70 44 35 37 53 52 35 53 44 41 44 62 27 56
20 55 62 73 37 36 29 52 36 66 23 100 40 49 46 57 50 58 33 57 35 38 61 34 13 56 56 64 68 49
34 60 49 52 46 57 57 60 46 37 58 40 100 51 45 45 58 30 29 38 52 47 39 35 42 56 66 63 43 50
34 49 53 61 49 50 33 55 58 44 47 49 51 100 42 52 67 60 19 35 52 49 56 58 51 48 53 60 49 64
33 48 34 51 36 47 49 47 45 47 32 46 45 42 100 37 52 43 16 37 45 45 39 31 30 45 42 43 54 50
29 55 46 58 44 38 45 64 41 54 48 57 45 52 37 100 62 48 48 46 57 50 66 45 35 45 55 68 54 57
17 48 54 59 45 55 53 62 57 58 70 50 58 67 52 62 100 56 37 38 62 63 56 56 44 56 63 74 52 66
8 62 59 71 64 43 11 56 53 70 44 58 30 60 43 48 56 100 52 67 48 47 56 44 31 62 52 47 55 55
-9 44 41 47 40 16 18 49 39 57 35 33 29 19 16 48 37 52 100 46 45 33 51 15 12 46 47 47 49 29
-5 51 41 73 53 41 22 55 57 55 37 57 38 35 37 46 38 67 46 100 32 46 41 33 29 52 47 37 52 32
37 54 45 51 51 50 52 57 49 39 53 35 52 52 45 57 62 48 45 32 100 38 64 43 43 42 53 58 58 62
18 37 47 50 58 59 38 60 66 47 52 38 47 49 45 50 63 47 33 46 38 100 49 62 49 64 57 58 50 67
27 53 67 64 53 55 50 67 50 61 35 61 39 56 39 66 56 56 51 41 64 49 100 54 43 63 66 66 69 63
50 40 42 49 46 52 46 57 52 31 53 34 35 58 31 45 56 44 15 33 43 62 54 100 53 49 44 48 43 57
32 42 35 45 42 56 54 54 52 28 44 13 42 51 30 35 44 31 12 29 43 49 43 53 100 48 55 40 32 52
19 52 70 65 68 66 40 61 68 71 41 56 56 48 45 45 56 62 46 52 42 64 63 49 48 100 63 54 52 67
23 61 62 67 45 62 53 60 45 54 44 56 66 53 42 55 63 52 47 47 53 57 66 44 55 63 100 69 65 62
31 62 61 71 44 54 54 73 49 60 62 64 63 60 43 68 74 47 47 37 58 58 66 48 40 54 69 100 68 77
22 57 63 73 43 51 52 64 51 57 27 68 43 49 54 54 52 55 49 52 58 50 69 43 32 52 65 68 100 63
36 60 63 64 55 68 45 65 54 52 56 49 50 64 50 57 66 55 29 32 62 67 63 57 52 67 62 77 63 100
41 51 60 51 43 50 40 60 37 49 54 46 35 52 41 54 71 50 24 27 56 44 60 63 31 40 48 68 50 69
40 55 32 54 43 53 54 54 45 33 45 36 52 47 60 63 56 43 30 43 61 52 62 60 48 34 67 54 56 49
32 62 60 50 72 58 37 75 54 62 56 36 47 51 42 57 51 66 38 44 50 57 62 55 57 69 51 55 41 66
395
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Law34
Law35
Law36
Law37
Law38
Law39
Law40
Law41
Law42
Law43
Law44
Law45
Law46
Law47
SORTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Law1
Law2
Law3
Law4
Law5
Law6
Law7
Law8
Law9
Law10
Law11
Law12
Law13
Law14
Law15
Law16
Law17
Law18
Law19
Law20
21
2
12
24
38
40
15
41
29
38
8
19
15
-3
46
56
52
50
40
62
60
10
38
57
46
47
56
59
39
61
58
55
42
62
60
0
62
52
54
61
66
62
47 51
66 43
48 45
61 52
57 37
62 65
61 43
9 -17
46 61
61 55
51 58
71 60
70 70
62 53
47
40
57
57
55
54
49
-5
63
45
59
48
58
49
47
30
52
55
38
38
60
12
28
35
24
34
34
45
61
52
58
67
43
67
68
11
55
62
46
63
62
52
58 51
43 63
49 66
56 47
44 31
36 48
54 58
9 -18
53 48
50 52
45 45
55 56
57 77
46 69
35
44
38
34
39
55
47
10
36
45
44
47
49
35
47
68
41
60
50
50
57
-2
43
61
29
64
63
55
50
45
35
65
43
45
52
25
50
63
28
47
50
43
47
45
46
43
52
55
46
14
59
59
46
66
58
57
57
41
43
50
36
47
57
11
49
44
38
47
54
48
47
38
44
62
65
51
62
9
39
45
43
62
57
48
57 52 45
45 64 49
62 57 50
50 47 41
43 42 20
51 59 31
61 51 49
20 -21 -23
51 44 17
57 55 25
49 55 32
59 52 36
57 78 52
62 64 45
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
41
51
60
51
43
50
40
60
37
49
54
46
35
52
41
54
71
50
24
27
40
55
32
54
43
53
54
54
45
33
45
36
52
47
60
63
56
43
30
43
32
62
60
50
72
58
37
75
54
62
56
36
47
51
42
57
51
66
38
44
21
46
39
47
51
47
47
61
58
51
35
47
50
47
57
47
57
52
45
47
2
56
61
66
43
40
30
52
43
63
44
68
45
45
41
38
45
64
49
59
12
52
58
48
45
57
52
58
49
66
38
41
35
46
43
44
62
57
50
41
24
50
55
61
52
57
55
67
56
47
34
60
65
43
50
62
50
47
41
58
38
40
42
57
37
55
38
43
44
31
39
50
43
52
36
65
43
42
20
36
40
62
62
62
65
54
38
67
36
48
55
50
45
55
47
51
51
59
31
53
15
60
60
61
43
49
60
68
54
58
47
57
52
46
57
62
61
51
49
49
41
10
0
9
-17
-5
12
11
9
-18
10
-2
25
14
11
9
20
-21
-23
-9
29
38
62
46
61
63
28
55
53
48
36
43
50
59
49
39
51
44
17
29
38
57
52
61
55
45
35
62
50
52
45
61
63
59
44
45
57
55
25
43
8
46
54
51
58
59
24
46
45
45
44
29
28
46
38
43
49
55
32
43
19
47
61
71
60
48
34
63
55
56
47
64
47
66
47
62
59
52
36
54
15
56
66
70
70
58
34
62
57
77
49
63
50
58
54
57
57
78
52
60
-3
59
62
62
53
49
45
52
46
69
35
55
43
57
48
48
62
64
45
50
47
59
41
58
36
53
49
-9
29
43
43
54
60
50
61
39
48
52
52
62
65
2
42
37
53
52
56
47
47
37
55
52
41
42
44
7
49
36
40
46
52
42
49
47
60
66
68
60
58
-4
46
43
46
62
63
53
39
31
49
48
53
58
48
21
40
47
38
28
35
34
32 53
33 61
56 62
34 61
41 45
41 41
44 51
12 -11
30 47
34 55
37 53
34 55
34 73
34 60
50
60
70
65
62
60
58
12
42
55
35
52
58
64
42
48
50
60
56
55
60
14
52
57
37
69
61
52
57
53
61
65
53
58
73
7
51
55
41
64
64
58
40
49
61
52
59
59
55
-1
59
48
63
64
68
55
396
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Law21
Law22
Law23
Law24
Law25
Law26
Law27
Law28
Law29
Law30
Law31
Law32
Law33
Law34
Law35
Law36
Law37
Law38
Law39
Law40
Law41
Law42
Law43
Law44
Law45
Law46
Law47
56 61 50 61 39 48 52 52 62 65
2 42 37 53 52 56 47
44 52 57 47 37 55 52 41 42 44
7 49 36 40 46 52 42
60 62 62 49 47 60 66 68 60 58 -4 46 43 46 62 63 53
63 60 55 39 31 49 48 53 58 48 21 40 47 38 28 35 34
31 48 57 32 33 56 34 41 41 44 12 30 34 37 34 34 34
40 34 69 53 61 62 61 45 41 51 -11 47 55 53 55 73 60
48 67 51 50 60 70 65 62 60 58 12 42 55 35 52 58 64
68 54 55 42 48 50 60 56 55 60 14 52 57 37 69 61 52
50 56 41 57 53 61 65 53 58 73
7 51 55 41 64 64 58
69 49 66 40 49 61 52 59 59 55 -1 59 48 63 64 68 55
100 53 52 35 38 52 42 43 68 55 23 57 48 57 44 45 44
53 100 49 47 29 50 62 70 64 56 29 42 42 33 40 38 43
52 49 100 44 43 56 54 46 62 52 -17 51 51 48 51 68 47
35 47 44 100 50 57 66 27 41 57 -1 40 55 48 45 52 59
38 29 43 50 100 52 46 33 52 64 -10 42 51 57 52 66 54
52 50 56 57 52 100 43 34 50 62 -10 39 45 44 38 54 75
42 62 54 66 46 43 100 62 53 67 -3 52 64 35 53 55 48
43 70 46 27 33 34 62 100 51 47 11 44 44 31 51 50 33
68 64 62 41 52 50 53 51 100 67
5 53 46 54 58 58 55
55 56 52 57 64 62 67 47 67 100
3 48 50 52 53 57 62
23 29 -17 -1 -10 -10 -3 11
5
3 100 -4 20 -6 -2 -28 -14
57 42 51 40 42 39 52 44 53 48 -4 100 61 50 60 63 39
48 42 51 55 51 45 64 44 46 50 20 61 100 25 56 59 49
57 33 48 48 57 44 35 31 54 52 -6 50 25 100 44 56 53
44 40 51 45 52 38 53 51 58 53 -2 60 56 44 100 74 49
45 38 68 52 66 54 55 50 58 57 -28 63 59 56 74 100 63
44 43 47 59 54 75 48 33 55 62 -14 39 49 53 49 63 100
397
PQMethod2.11
Unrotated Factor Matrix
Factors
1
SORTS
1 Law1
0.3362
2 Law2
0.7416
3 Law3
0.7600
4 Law4
0.8282
5 Law5
0.7227
6 Law6
0.7303
7 Law7
0.5812
8 Law8
0.8365
9 Law9
0.7014
10 Law10
0.7415
11 Law11
0.6365
12 Law12
0.6961
13 Law13
0.6794
14 Law14
0.7260
15 Law15
0.6265
16 Law16
0.7289
17 Law17
0.7867
18 Law18
0.7468
19 Law19
0.5274
20 Law20
0.6395
21 Law21
0.7177
22 Law22
0.6965
23 Law23
0.7934
24 Law24
0.6493
25 Law25
0.5764
26 Law26
0.7814
27 Law27
0.7924
28 Law28
0.8095
29 Law29
0.7786
30 Law30
0.8134
2
0.6287
0.0104
-0.1686
-0.1092
-0.1737
0.1168
0.3299
0.0626
-0.0482
-0.4136
0.1972
-0.2323
0.2457
0.1509
0.1057
0.0945
0.1477
-0.3862
-0.4402
-0.3598
0.1695
0.0923
0.0030
0.3987
0.3036
-0.2244
0.0675
0.1479
-0.0662
0.1249
3
-0.0074
-0.1540
0.0516
-0.1910
0.4009
0.3354
-0.2007
-0.0033
0.2142
-0.0458
0.2321
-0.4232
-0.1188
0.1299
-0.1298
-0.2152
0.0225
0.1056
-0.1915
-0.1121
-0.0261
0.2675
-0.0979
0.2339
0.3067
0.2032
-0.1919
-0.1763
-0.3404
0.2167
4
-0.3386
-0.1118
-0.2062
-0.1668
-0.1370
0.1172
0.4813
0.0232
0.1831
0.0012
0.0150
-0.3089
0.0633
-0.2178
0.0499
-0.0257
0.0959
-0.1617
0.2449
0.0134
0.1351
0.1818
0.0234
0.0245
0.3190
0.0765
0.1799
-0.0889
0.0201
-0.0894
5
-0.0340
-0.1372
-0.0554
0.0417
0.0975
0.1606
0.0287
0.0159
0.3578
-0.0399
-0.1349
0.0923
0.3509
0.0819
0.1945
-0.2198
-0.0502
-0.1062
-0.2616
0.1749
-0.2695
0.1767
-0.2256
-0.0777
0.0711
0.2342
0.0203
-0.0944
-0.0177
-0.1315
6
0.0774
-0.1265
-0.0864
0.0082
0.1427
0.0912
-0.0724
-0.0088
0.0641
-0.1237
-0.2339
0.0202
-0.1544
-0.1135
-0.1291
0.2058
-0.3362
0.0032
0.0571
0.1446
0.0399
0.0638
0.3135
0.0846
0.0479
0.0514
0.0454
-0.0860
0.0704
-0.0238
7
0.1200
0.3051
-0.2219
0.1415
0.1848
-0.1963
-0.1990
0.1734
0.0115
-0.0683
0.3280
-0.1405
0.1469
-0.0800
-0.1216
0.0760
-0.0709
0.2068
0.2586
0.3832
0.0175
-0.0013
-0.1861
0.0895
0.0903
-0.0525
-0.0381
-0.1019
-0.2093
-0.2299
8
0.2344
0.1091
-0.0865
-0.1093
0.1428
0.0669
0.0403
-0.0273
-0.0815
-0.0654
-0.2224
-0.0632
-0.0692
-0.0837
0.4387
-0.1514
-0.1993
0.0646
-0.1667
0.0239
0.2218
-0.2467
-0.0749
-0.0461
-0.0918
-0.1418
-0.1774
-0.3405
0.0779
-0.1240
398
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Law31
Law32
Law33
Law34
Law35
Law36
Law37
Law38
Law39
Law40
Law41
Law42
Law43
Law44
Law45
Law46
Law47
0.7015
0.6963
0.7587
0.6840
0.6879
0.7280
0.7613
0.6546
0.7620
0.7843
0.0367
0.6717
0.7071
0.6342
0.7502
0.8194
0.7318
0.2640
0.4042
-0.0307
-0.0911
-0.3649
-0.1204
0.0358
0.2808
0.1000
-0.0273
0.6731
0.0473
0.0634
-0.1554
-0.1147
-0.3498
-0.2912
0.0867
-0.1628
0.3591
-0.1066
-0.1185
0.0747
-0.2363
-0.1191
0.0361
-0.2211
-0.2659
0.2292
-0.1306
0.3440
-0.0753
0.0896
-0.0621
-0.2097
0.1742
-0.0103
0.2777
-0.0580
0.3834
0.1036
-0.1187
-0.1883
0.1908
-0.1295
-0.3089
-0.2583
-0.0281
-0.2906
-0.1529
0.1777
-0.3677
-0.0948
-0.0755
0.2024
0.0244
-0.1599
0.2485
-0.0475
-0.2729
-0.1203
0.1489
0.2121
0.3688
-0.2278
0.1030
0.0502
-0.0690
-0.2295
0.2374
0.1665
-0.1149
-0.2126
-0.1433
0.3003
0.4935
0.0353
-0.0940
-0.3219
-0.0245
-0.1544
-0.1660
0.0615
0.0680
-0.2272
-0.1339
0.1270
0.1718
0.0693
0.0749
-0.1469
-0.0071
-0.1168
0.1271
-0.0394
0.1806
-0.3029
0.0971
-0.0488
-0.1110
-0.0485
-0.1276
0.0148
0.1642
0.0155
0.3397
0.0139
-0.0002
0.1033
-0.1094
0.2563
0.1725
-0.1205
0.1657
0.0172
0.2368
-0.1134
0.0246
0.0841
Eigenvalues
% expl.Var.
23.6248
50
3.0258
6
1.9055
4
1.6679
4
1.4369
3
1.2772
3
1.2178
3
1.1724
2
399
PQMethod2.11
Cumulative Communalities Matrix
Factors 1 Thru ....
1
2
SORTS
1 Law1
0.1130
0.5083
2 Law2
0.5500
0.5501
3 Law3
0.5776
0.6061
4 Law4
0.6859
0.6978
5 Law5
0.5223
0.5525
6 Law6
0.5334
0.5470
7 Law7
0.3378
0.4467
8 Law8
0.6997
0.7036
9 Law9
0.4919
0.4942
10 Law10
0.5499
0.7209
11 Law11
0.4052
0.4441
12 Law12
0.4846
0.5386
13 Law13
0.4616
0.5219
14 Law14
0.5271
0.5499
15 Law15
0.3925
0.4037
16 Law16
0.5313
0.5403
17 Law17
0.6189
0.6407
18 Law18
0.5577
0.7068
19 Law19
0.2782
0.4719
20 Law20
0.4090
0.5385
21 Law21
0.5151
0.5438
22 Law22
0.4852
0.4937
23 Law23
0.6295
0.6295
24 Law24
0.4216
0.5805
25 Law25
0.3323
0.4245
26 Law26
0.6106
0.6609
27 Law27
0.6278
0.6324
28 Law28
0.6553
0.6772
29 Law29
0.6062
0.6106
30 Law30
0.6616
0.6772
3
0.5083
0.5738
0.6087
0.7343
0.7132
0.6595
0.4870
0.7036
0.5401
0.7230
0.4979
0.7177
0.5360
0.5668
0.4206
0.5866
0.6412
0.7179
0.5086
0.5510
0.5445
0.5652
0.6391
0.6352
0.5185
0.7022
0.6692
0.7083
0.7264
0.7242
4
0.6230
0.5863
0.6512
0.7621
0.7320
0.6733
0.7186
0.7042
0.5736
0.7230
0.4982
0.8131
0.5401
0.6142
0.4231
0.5872
0.6504
0.7441
0.5686
0.5512
0.5628
0.5983
0.6396
0.6359
0.6203
0.7081
0.7016
0.7162
0.7268
0.7322
5
0.6241
0.6052
0.6543
0.7639
0.7415
0.6991
0.7194
0.7044
0.7017
0.7246
0.5164
0.8216
0.6632
0.6209
0.4609
0.6355
0.6530
0.7554
0.6370
0.5818
0.6354
0.6295
0.6905
0.6419
0.6253
0.7629
0.7020
0.7251
0.7272
0.7495
6
0.6301
0.6212
0.6618
0.7639
0.7619
0.7074
0.7246
0.7045
0.7058
0.7399
0.5711
0.8220
0.6870
0.6338
0.4776
0.6779
0.7660
0.7554
0.6403
0.6027
0.6370
0.6336
0.7888
0.6490
0.6276
0.7656
0.7040
0.7324
0.7321
0.7500
7
0.6445
0.7142
0.7110
0.7840
0.7960
0.7459
0.7643
0.7346
0.7059
0.7446
0.6787
0.8418
0.7086
0.6402
0.4923
0.6837
0.7710
0.7981
0.7071
0.7496
0.6373
0.6336
0.8234
0.6571
0.6358
0.7683
0.7055
0.7428
0.7759
0.8029
8
0.6995
0.7261
0.7185
0.7959
0.8164
0.7504
0.7659
0.7353
0.7126
0.7489
0.7281
0.8458
0.7134
0.6472
0.6848
0.7066
0.8107
0.8023
0.7349
0.7502
0.6865
0.6945
0.8290
0.6592
0.6442
0.7885
0.7370
0.8588
0.7820
0.8183
400
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Law31
Law32
Law33
Law34
Law35
Law36
Law37
Law38
Law39
Law40
Law41
Law42
Law43
Law44
Law45
Law46
Law47
cum% expl.Var.
0.4921
0.4849
0.5756
0.4678
0.4732
0.5300
0.5797
0.4285
0.5807
0.6152
0.0013
0.4511
0.4999
0.4022
0.5628
0.6714
0.5356
0.5618
0.6483
0.5765
0.4761
0.6064
0.5446
0.5809
0.5073
0.5907
0.6160
0.4544
0.4534
0.5040
0.4263
0.5759
0.7938
0.6204
0.5693
0.6748
0.7055
0.4874
0.6204
0.5501
0.6368
0.5215
0.5920
0.6648
0.5251
0.5059
0.5210
0.5446
0.5816
0.8019
0.6242
0.6133
0.7051
0.7056
0.5646
0.6238
0.6972
0.6475
0.5356
0.6274
0.7012
0.5419
0.6013
0.5877
0.5454
0.6660
0.8252
0.6558
0.7485
0.7141
0.7113
0.6055
0.6244
0.7227
0.7093
0.5379
0.7019
0.7157
0.5641
0.6463
0.7238
0.5973
0.6766
0.8277
0.6606
0.8012
0.7704
0.7390
0.6187
0.6696
0.7432
0.7995
0.7814
0.7032
0.7245
0.6677
0.6469
0.7476
0.6249
0.6804
0.8324
0.7122
0.8191
0.7866
0.7686
0.6235
0.6752
0.7648
0.7995
0.7951
0.7193
0.7261
0.7003
0.7387
0.7570
0.6273
0.6927
0.8347
0.7285
0.8193
0.8135
0.7688
0.7389
0.6754
0.7648
0.8102
0.8070
0.7850
0.7558
0.7148
0.7661
0.7573
0.6834
0.7056
0.8353
0.7356
50
57
61
64
67
70
73
75
QANGLES File Not Found - Apparently VARIMAX Was Used
401
PQMethod2.11
Factor Matrix with an X Indicating a Defining Sort
Loadings
QSORT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Law1
Law2
Law3
Law4
Law5
Law6
Law7
Law8
Law9
Law10
Law11
Law12
Law13
Law14
Law15
Law16
Law17
Law18
Law19
Law20
Law21
Law22
Law23
Law24
Law25
Law26
Law27
Law28
Law29
Law30
1
-0.0123
0.5689X
0.6133X
0.7224X
0.4105
0.2068
0.1251
0.4880
0.3111
0.7104X
0.1848
0.8574X
0.3304
0.3883
0.3816
0.5157
0.3756
0.6827X
0.5771X
0.6435X
0.3298
0.2087
0.5360
0.0808
-0.0429
0.4958
0.4929
0.5406
0.6757X
0.3760
2
0.2065
0.2927
0.4816
0.3151
0.7445X
0.6725X
0.1150
0.4588
0.5510X
0.3742
0.5432X
0.0617
0.2722
0.5276
0.2353
0.2276
0.4463
0.5159
0.1147
0.2616
0.3645
0.5922X
0.3567
0.5504
0.5461
0.5957X
0.2651
0.3096
0.1481
0.6374X
3
0.7593X
0.2938
0.1563
0.2565
0.0303
0.1535
0.2245
0.2603
0.0087
-0.1246
0.2663
0.2453
0.3709
0.3906
0.2543
0.3288
0.2734
-0.0548
-0.2900
-0.0998
0.2641
0.1083
0.2224
0.4254
0.1689
-0.0558
0.2174
0.4152
0.2190
0.3103
4
0.0609
0.3012
0.1367
0.2741
0.0908
0.3933
0.7996X
0.4332
0.4161
0.2506
0.3131
0.1186
0.4682
0.1801
0.3967
0.4017
0.4852
0.0941
0.3719
0.2423
0.5014
0.4385
0.4191
0.3813
0.5401
0.3229
0.5840
0.3946
0.4477
0.2970
402
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Law31
Law32
Law33
Law34
Law35
Law36
Law37
Law38
Law39
Law40
Law41
Law42
Law43
Law44
Law 45
Law46
Law47
% expl.Var.
0.3292
0.2401
0.3344
0.4390
0.7028X
0.3655
0.5354
0.3550
0.4716
0.5485
-0.1748
0.3938
0.5554X
0.3355
0.6635X
0.7134X
0.5888X
23
0.4773
0.2355
0.7189X
0.2680
0.2891
0.4339
0.2176
0.2732
0.4676
0.2359
-0.1911
0.5877X
0.3050
0.6392X
0.3780
0.5422
0.3403
18
0.4801
0.4571
0.1008
-0.0051
-0.0544
-0.1095
0.2315
0.4823
0.3659
0.1407
0.6703X
0.3163
0.3940
-0.0194
0.2668
-0.0074
-0.1129
9
0.2159
0.6189X
0.2585
0.5477X
0.2081
0.6028X
0.5098
0.3199
0.2290
0.5700
0.1598
0.0294
0.1761
0.1547
0.1089
0.1493
0.4250
14
403
PQMethod2.11
Free Distribution Data Results
QSORT
MEAN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Law1
Law2
Law3
Law4
Law5
Law6
Law7
Law8
Law9
Law10
Law11
Law12
Law13
Law14
Law15
Law16
Law17
Law18
Law19
Law20
Law21
Law22
Law23
Law24
Law25
Law26
Law27
Law28
Law29
Law30
ST.DEV.
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
404
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Law31
Law32
Law33
Law34
Law35
Law36
Law37
Law38
Law39
Law40
Law41
Law42
Law43
Law44
Law45
Law46
Law47
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
2.638
405
PQMethod2.11
Rank Statement Totals with Each Factor (For full statements, see Appendix 1A)
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Statement
We should advise young teachers early in their careers
MOE should give clear advice and publicaise it so that
No need for overkill. A simple action, like a talk fro
All appointment holders (P, VP, HODs, STs, DM, AM etc)
We should develop HR skills and nurture good relations
Everything is in the Principals' Handbook, so principa
Keep the best interests of the children at heart and y
The government should introduce legislation to prevent
Schools should identify hazards and assess the risk of
An MOE sponsored conference or Principals' Forum shoul
The most important attribute in dealing with the law i
It is mainly PE, science lab and workshop teachers who
If MOE wants us to know about legal issues, they shoul
Vet teaching applicants more carefully and that would
Schools should adopt Standard operating Procedures to
Often, it's the students who start things off. We shou
We need training in mediation skills: parents argue wi
NIE should include law in its leadership programmes, l
Let's go back to the days when what the school said an
If the school knows where there are problem areas (e.g
With more involvement from outsiders (e.g. parents and
No worries! Singapore is not like other countries. The
There must be constant reinforcement. Principals shoul
Hold staff meetings and student assemblies to review r
A good strategy is procrastination or 'play for time'.
The MOE should prevent the press from getting hold of
Having the right teachers helps to avoid legal issues.
NIE should have legal instruction in its pre-service a
We should keep in regular contact with parents, keepin
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
1
1.12
0.50
-0.66
2.05
1.01
-0.80
-0.79
-1.31
0.21
1.69
-1.08
-0.69
-0.42
-0.75
-0.19
-0.85
0.97
1.84
-1.88
0.38
0.63
-1.69
0.90
0.84
-1.06
-1.59
-0.65
1.47
0.25
0.16
Factors
2
7
15
34
1
9
38
37
43
20
3
42
35
29
36
26
39
11
2
47
16
14
46
12
13
41
44
33
4
18
21
0.23
-0.43
-1.03
1.24
0.94
-0.30
-0.62
-0.86
1.20
0.43
0.16
-0.90
-0.43
-1.07
1.14
-0.12
1.17
0.77
-1.79
0.74
0.98
-2.16
1.64
0.86
-1.35
-1.45
-1.06
0.28
0.21
0.37
3
21
31
40
5
10
28
36
37
6
17
23
38
30
42
8
27
7
12
45
13
9
47
3
11
43
44
41
20
22
18
0.27
0.28
0.17
-1.35
2.06
-0.36
1.98
-0.53
1.08
0.72
0.26
-0.45
-0.35
-0.80
-0.73
0.90
1.25
-1.44
-0.27
-1.25
0.98
0.64
0.63
0.09
-1.34
-1.70
-0.71
-1.71
-1.08
2.06
4
20
19
22
43
2
31
3
33
6
14
21
32
29
37
36
9
5
44
27
41
7
15
17
23
42
46
34
47
39
2
0.76
1.33
-0.39
1.10
2.09
-1.22
-1.18
1.35
1.39
1.50
-0.40
-1.29
-0.42
-0.65
-0.03
0.33
1.42
0.62
-1.82
1.26
1.05
-1.61
0.77
1.14
-1.52
-0.19
-0.42
-0.23
0.33
1.07
13
6
30
9
1
41
40
5
4
2
31
42
33
35
23
18
3
15
47
7
11
46
12
8
44
26
33
28
19
10
406
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Whenever a legal issue arises, consult the MOE's legal

Principals hsould be the first ones to be given law kn
We should draw on the help of lawyer friends or alumni
The principal should spell out behaviour policies and
This is all a management issue. Use common sense, be s
The cluster superintendent should hold a workshop ever
We should give legal knowledge to teachers first. If t
Parents should be made to sign a statement saying that
All teachers should be trained and involved in routine
What we do now is adequate: we deal with simple matter
The Teachers' Handbook contains the do's and don'ts. T
We must have strong leaders in schools, leaders who wi
Make the school a risk-free zone. Do everything by the
There are human resource risks. Schools should look af
The government should set up legislative standards for
Rules are they key: craft them well and write them dow
We educators must develop 'awareness' of correct cours
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
0.30
1.30
-0.42
1.10
-0.45
0.04
0.97
-1.60
-0.39
-0.64
-0.01
0.23
-1.01
0.09
0.04
-0.53
1.39
17
6
28
8
30
24
10
45
27
32
25
19
40
22
23
31
5
0.53
1.37
-0.60
1.68
-0.54
-0.56
0.03
-2.14
0.54
-0.35
0.05
1.74
-0.52
-0.02
-1.02
0.32
0.67
16
4
35
2
33
34
25
46
15
29
24
1
32
26
39
19
14
0.28
0.90
0.81
0.63
0.80
-1.53
-0.90
-0.36
-0.18
-0.09
-0.28
-1.25
-0.18
1.25
0.73
-0.73
0.80
19
9
10
17
12
45
38
31
26
24
28
41
26
5
13
36
12
0.30
0.39
-1.49
0.23
-0.91
-0.84
-0.81
-1.17
-0.17
-0.03
0.39
-0.30
-1.58
0.72
-0.63
-0.02
-0.21
20
17
43
21
38
37
36
39
25
24
16
29
45
14
34
22
27
407
Correlations Between Factor Scores

1
1.0000
0.7686
0.0893
0.6220
0.7686
1.0000
0.1667
0.6488
0.0893
0.1667
1.0000
0.2610
0.6220
0.6488
0.2610
1.0000
408
PQMethod2.11
Normalized Factor Scores -- For Factor

No.
4
18
10
28
47
32
1
34
5
37
17
23
24
21
2
20
31
29
42
9
30
44
45
36
41
15
39
33
13
Statement (For full statements, see Appendix 1A)
No.
All appointment holders (P, VP, HODs, STs, DM, AM etc) shoul
NIE should include law in its leadership programmes, like LE
An MOE sponsored conference or Principals' Forum should be o
NIE should have legal instruction in its pre-service and per
We educators must develop 'awareness' of correct courses of
Principals hsould be the first ones to be given law knowledg
We should advise young teachers early in their careers about
The principal should spell out behaviour policies and discip
We should develop HR skills and nurture good relationships w
We should give legal knowledge to teachers first. If they ge
We need training in mediation skills: parents argue with tea
There must be constant reinforcement. Principals should remi
Hold staff meetings and student assemblies to review rules t
With more involvement from outsiders (e.g. parents and coach
MOE should give clear advice and publicaise it so that schoo
If the school knows where there are problem areas (e.g. PE,
Whenever a legal issue arises, consult the MOE's legal advis
We must have strong leaders in schools, leaders who will giv
Schools should identify hazards and assess the risk of accid
We should keep in regular contact with parents, keeping them
There are human resource risks. Schools should look after th
The government should set up legislative standards for probl
The cluster superintendent should hold a workshop every so o
The Teachers' Handbook contains the do's and don'ts. Teacher
Schools should adopt Standard operating Procedures to cover
All teachers should be trained and involved in routine inspe
We should draw on the help of lawyer friends or alumni if le
If MOE wants us to know about legal issues, they should arra
4
18
10
28
47
32
1
34
5
37
17
23
24
21
2
20
31
29
42
9
30
44
45
36
41
15
39
33
13
Z-SCORES
2.049
1.843
1.691
1.470
1.386
1.302
1.120
1.098
1.008
0.974
0.966
0.898
0.837
0.627
0.502
0.376
0.302
0.250
0.231
0.209
0.163
0.091
0.040
0.037
-0.013
-0.186
-0.388
-0.418
-0.422
409
35
46
40
27
3
12
14
7
6
16
43
25
11
8
26
38
22
19
This is all a management issue. Use common sense, be sensiti

Rules are they key: craft them well and write them down.
What we do now is adequate: we deal with simple matters. If
Having the right teachers helps to avoid legal issues. We sh
No need for overkill. A simple action, like a talk from a la
It is mainly PE, science lab and workshop teachers who shoul
Vet teaching applicants more carefully and that would reduce
Keep the best interests of the children at heart and you won
Everything is in the Principals' Handbook, so principals sho
Often, it's the students who start things off. We should rem
Make the school a risk-free zone. Do everything by the book.
A good strategy is procrastination or 'play for time'. This
The most important attribute in dealing with the law is 'exp
The government should introduce legislation to prevent schoo
The MOE should prevent the press from getting hold of storie
Parents should be made to sign a statement saying that they
No worries! Singapore is not like other countries. The gover
Let's go back to the days when what the school said and did
35
46
40
27
3
12
14
7
6
16
43
25
11
8
26
38
22
19
-0.446
-0.532
-0.641
-0.651
-0.664
-0.687
-0.753
-0.793
-0.803
-0.854
-1.012
-1.060
-1.083
-1.313
-1.591
-1.599
-1.685
-1.875
410
PQMethod2.11

No.
42
34
23
32
4
9
17
15
21
5
24
18
20
47
39
31
10
30
46
28
1
29
11
41
37
44
16
6
40
13
No.
Z-SCORES

42
34
23
32
4
9
17
15
21
5
24
18
20
47
39
31
10
30
46
28
1
29
11
41
37
44
16
6
40
13
1.738
1.679
1.643
1.375
1.240
1.202
1.174
1.144
0.981
0.941
0.862
0.771
0.745
0.670
0.540
0.528
0.433
0.371
0.317
0.283
0.228
0.209
0.160
0.052
0.030
-0.017
-0.119
-0.299
-0.352
-0.427
411
2
43
35
36
33
7
8
12
45
3
27
14
25
26
19
38
22

2
43
35
36
33
7
8
12
45
3
27
14
25
26
19
38
22
-0.432
-0.519
-0.539
-0.556
-0.602
-0.621
-0.865
-0.896
-1.020
-1.032
-1.062
-1.069
-1.346
-1.454
-1.786
-2.137
-2.165
412
PQMethod2.11

No.
5
30
7
17
44
9
21
16
32
33
35
47
45
10
22
23
34
2
31
1
11
3
24
40
39
43
19
41
No.

5
30
7
17
44
9
21
16
32
33
35
47
45
10
22
23
34
2
31
1
11
3
24
40
39
43
19
41
Z-SCORES
2.062
2.062
1.976
1.251
1.251
1.079
0.983
0.897
0.897
0.812
0.802
0.802
0.726
0.716
0.640
0.630
0.630
0.277
0.277
0.267
0.258
0.172
0.086
-0.086
-0.181
-0.181
-0.267
-0.277
413
13
6
38
12
8
27
15
46
14
37
29
42
20
25
4
18
36
26
28

13
6
38
12
8
27
15
46
14
37
29
42
20
25
4
18
36
26
28
-0.353
-0.363
-0.363
-0.449
-0.535
-0.706
-0.726
-0.726
-0.802
-0.897
-1.079
-1.251
-1.251
-1.336
-1.346
-1.442
-1.528
-1.699
-1.709
414
PQMethod2.11

No.
5
10
17
9
8
2
20
24
4
30
21
23
1
44
18
41
32
16
29
31
34
46
15
40
39
26
47
28
42
No.

5
10
17
9
8
2
20
24
4
30
21
23
1
44
18
41
32
16
29
31
34
46
15
40
39
26
47
28
42
Z-SCORES
2.089
1.497
1.424
1.394
1.354
1.332
1.256
1.136
1.098
1.071
1.048
0.774
0.762
0.718
0.618
0.392
0.389
0.329
0.329
0.303
0.227
-0.020
-0.031
-0.033
-0.173
-0.189
-0.211
-0.235
-0.303
415
3
11
13
27
45
14
37
36
35
38
7
6
12
33
25
43
22
19

3
11
13
27
45
14
37
36
35
38
7
6
12
33
25
43
22
19
-0.391
-0.403
-0.420
-0.420
-0.627
-0.654
-0.812
-0.841
-0.905
-1.170
-1.182
-1.220
-1.289
-1.490
-1.515
-1.575
-1.610
-1.821
416
PQMethod2.11
Descending Array of Differences Between Factors

No.
10
28
18
45
37
2
1
4
47
36
38
22
27
3
14
25
12
33
44
35
5
29
13
24
41
32
19
26
7
30
1 and
No.
Type

10
28
18
45
37
2
1
4
47
36
38
22
27
3
14
25
12
33
44
35
5
29
13
24
41
32
19
26
7
30
1.691
1.470
1.843
0.040
0.974
0.502
1.120
2.049
1.386
0.037
-1.599
-1.685
-0.651
-0.664
-0.753
-1.060
-0.687
-0.418
0.091
-0.446
1.008
0.250
-0.422
0.837
-0.013
1.302
-1.875
-1.591
-0.793
0.163
Type 2
0.433
0.283
0.771
-1.020
0.030
-0.432
0.228
1.240
0.670
-0.556
-2.137
-2.165
-1.062
-1.032
-1.069
-1.346
-0.896
-0.602
-0.017
-0.539
0.941
0.209
-0.427
0.862
0.052
1.375
-1.786
-1.454
-0.621
0.371
Difference
1.259
1.187
1.072
1.060
0.944
0.934
0.892
0.810
0.716
0.593
0.538
0.479
0.411
0.367
0.317
0.286
0.209
0.184
0.108
0.093
0.067
0.041
0.006
-0.025
-0.064
-0.073
-0.090
-0.137
-0.172
-0.208
417
17
31
40
21
20
8
43
6
34
16
23
46
39
9
11
15
42

17
31
40
21
20
8
43
6
34
16
23
46
39
9
11
15
42
0.966
0.302
-0.641
0.627
0.376
-1.313
-1.012
-0.803
1.098
-0.854
0.898
-0.532
-0.388
0.209
-1.083
-0.186
0.231
1.174
0.528
-0.352
0.981
0.745
-0.865
-0.519
-0.299
1.679
-0.119
1.643
0.317
0.540
1.202
0.160
1.144
1.738
-0.209
-0.226
-0.289
-0.354
-0.369
-0.448
-0.493
-0.504
-0.581
-0.735
-0.745
-0.849
-0.928
-0.993
-1.244
-1.330
-1.507
418
PQMethod2.11

No.
4
18
28
37
20
36
42
29
10
1
24
47
15
34
32
25
23
41
2
46
26
27
14
31
13
39
12
17
21
6
1 and
No.
Type 1
Type 3
4
18
28
37
20
36
42
29
10
1
24
47
15
34
32
25
23
41
2
46
26
27
14
31
13
39
12
17
21
6
2.049
1.843
1.470
0.974
0.376
0.037
0.231
0.250
1.691
1.120
0.837
1.386
-0.186
1.098
1.302
-1.060
0.898
-0.013
0.502
-0.532
-1.591
-0.651
-0.753
0.302
-0.422
-0.388
-0.687
0.966
0.627
-0.803
-1.346
-1.442
-1.709
-0.897
-1.251
-1.528
-1.251
-1.079
0.716
0.267
0.086
0.802
-0.726
0.630
0.897
-1.336
0.630
-0.277
0.277
-0.726
-1.699
-0.706
-0.802
0.277
-0.353
-0.181
-0.449
1.251
0.983
-0.363
Difference
3.395
3.285
3.179
1.871
1.627
1.564
1.482
1.329
0.975
0.853
0.751
0.584
0.539
0.468
0.405
0.277
0.268
0.264
0.225
0.194
0.108
0.055
0.049
0.025
-0.069
-0.207
-0.238
-0.285
-0.357
-0.440
419
40
45
8
43
3
9
5
44
33
38
35
11
19
16
30
22
7

40
45
8
43
3
9
5
44
33
38
35
11
19
16
30
22
7
-0.641
0.040
-1.313
-1.012
-0.664
0.209
1.008
0.091
-0.418
-1.599
-0.446
-1.083
-1.875
-0.854
0.163
-1.685
-0.793
-0.086
0.726
-0.535
-0.181
0.172
1.079
2.062
1.251
0.812
-0.363
0.802
0.258
-0.267
0.897
2.062
0.640
1.976
-0.555
-0.686
-0.778
-0.830
-0.836
-0.870
-1.054
-1.160
-1.230
-1.236
-1.248
-1.341
-1.608
-1.752
-1.899
-2.325
-2.770
420
PQMethod2.11

No.
37
28
47
18
33
4
32
36
34
45
12
43
42
35
25
6
7
1
10
23
13
31
19
22
29
14
15
39
27
3
1 and
4
No.

37
28
47
18
33
4
32
36
34
45
12
43
42
35
25
6
7
1
10
23
13
31
19
22
29
14
15
39
27
3
Type 1
Type 4
Difference
0.974
1.470
1.386
1.843
-0.418
2.049
1.302
0.037
1.098
0.040
-0.687
-1.012
0.231
-0.446
-1.060
-0.803
-0.793
1.120
1.691
0.898
-0.422
0.302
-1.875
-1.685
0.250
-0.753
-0.186
-0.388
-0.651
-0.664
-0.812
-0.235
-0.211
0.618
-1.490
1.098
0.389
-0.841
0.227
-0.627
-1.289
-1.575
-0.303
-0.905
-1.515
-1.220
-1.182
0.762
1.497
0.774
-0.420
0.303
-1.821
-1.610
0.329
-0.654
-0.031
-0.173
-0.420
-0.391
1.786
1.705
1.597
1.225
1.072
0.951
0.913
0.877
0.871
0.667
0.602
0.563
0.534
0.459
0.456
0.417
0.388
0.358
0.194
0.124
-0.001
-0.001
-0.054
-0.076
-0.079
-0.098
-0.155
-0.215
-0.231
-0.273
421
24
41
21
38
17
46
40
44
11
2
20
30
5
16
9
26
8

24
41
21
38
17
46
40
44
11
2
20
30
5
16
9
26
8
0.837
-0.013
0.627
-1.599
0.966
-0.532
-0.641
0.091
-1.083
0.502
0.376
0.163
1.008
-0.854
0.209
-1.591
-1.313
1.136
0.392
1.048
-1.170
1.424
-0.020
-0.033
0.718
-0.403
1.332
1.256
1.071
2.089
0.329
1.394
-0.189
1.354
-0.299
-0.405
-0.421
-0.429
-0.458
-0.512
-0.608
-0.628
-0.681
-0.830
-0.880
-0.908
-1.081
-1.183
-1.185
-1.402
-2.667
422
PQMethod2.11

No.
42
4
18
20
28
15
29
34
46
23
36
37
24
39
32
41
31
26
9
6
21
25
1
13
17
11
47
40
14
10
2 and
No.

42
4
18
20
28
15
29
34
46
23
36
37
24
39
32
41
31
26
9
6
21
25
1
13
17
11
47
40
14
10
Type 2
1.738
1.240
0.771
0.745
0.283
1.144
0.209
1.679
0.317
1.643
-0.556
0.030
0.862
0.540
1.375
0.052
0.528
-1.454
1.202
-0.299
0.981
-1.346
0.228
-0.427
1.174
0.160
0.670
-0.352
-1.069
0.433
Type 3
Difference
-1.251
-1.346
-1.442
-1.251
-1.709
-0.726
-1.079
0.630
-0.726
0.630
-1.528
-0.897
0.086
-0.181
0.897
-0.277
0.277
-1.699
1.079
-0.363
0.983
-1.336
0.267
-0.353
1.251
0.258
0.802
-0.086
-0.802
0.716
2.988
2.586
2.213
1.995
1.992
1.870
1.288
1.049
1.042
1.013
0.972
0.928
0.776
0.721
0.478
0.329
0.251
0.245
0.123
0.064
-0.003
-0.010
-0.039
-0.074
-0.076
-0.097
-0.132
-0.266
-0.268
-0.283
423
8
43
27
12
2
16
5
3
44
35
33
19
30
45
38
7
22

8
43
27
12
2
16
5
3
44
35
33
19
30
45
38
7
22
-0.865
-0.519
-1.062
-0.896
-0.432
-0.119
0.941
-1.032
-0.017
-0.539
-0.602
-1.786
0.371
-1.020
-2.137
-0.621
-2.165
-0.535
-0.181
-0.706
-0.449
0.277
0.897
2.062
0.172
1.251
0.802
0.812
-0.267
2.062
0.726
-0.363
1.976
0.640
-0.330
-0.337
-0.356
-0.447
-0.709
-1.016
-1.121
-1.203
-1.268
-1.341
-1.414
-1.518
-1.691
-1.746
-1.774
-2.597
-2.805
424
PQMethod2.11

No.
42
34
15
43
32
6
33
47
23
37
39
11
7
28
12
35
46
36
31
25
18
4
19
13
21
29
9
17
24
2 and
No.

42
34
15
43
32
6
33
47
23
37
39
11
7
28
12
35
46
36
31
25
18
4
19
13
21
29
9
17
24
Type 2
1.738
1.679
1.144
-0.519
1.375
-0.299
-0.602
0.670
1.643
0.030
0.540
0.160
-0.621
0.283
-0.896
-0.539
0.317
-0.556
0.528
-1.346
0.771
1.240
-1.786
-0.427
0.981
0.209
1.202
1.174
0.862
Type 4
-0.303
0.227
-0.031
-1.575
0.389
-1.220
-1.490
-0.211
0.774
-0.812
-0.173
-0.403
-1.182
-0.235
-1.289
-0.905
-0.020
-0.841
0.303
-1.515
0.618
1.098
-1.821
-0.420
1.048
0.329
1.394
1.424
1.136
Difference
2.041
1.452
1.175
1.056
0.986
0.921
0.888
0.881
0.869
0.843
0.713
0.563
0.561
0.518
0.393
0.366
0.337
0.285
0.225
0.169
0.153
0.142
0.036
-0.007
-0.067
-0.120
-0.192
-0.249
-0.274
425
40
41
45
14
16
20
1
22
3
27
30
44
38
10
5
26
2
8

40
41
45
14
16
20
1
22
3
27
30
44
38
10
5
26
2
8
-0.352
0.052
-1.020
-1.069
-0.119
0.745
0.228
-2.165
-1.032
-1.062
0.371
-0.017
-2.137
0.433
0.941
-1.454
-0.432
-0.865
-0.033
0.392
-0.627
-0.654
0.329
1.256
0.762
-1.610
-0.391
-0.420
1.071
0.718
-1.170
1.497
2.089
-0.189
1.332
1.354
-0.319
-0.341
-0.393
-0.415
-0.448
-0.511
-0.534
-0.555
-0.641
-0.642
-0.700
-0.735
-0.967
-1.065
-1.148
-1.265
-1.764
-2.219
426
PQMethod2.11

No.
7
33
22
35
19
43
45
47
30
6
12
38
11
16
3
44
32
34
25
13
39
31
5
40
21
37
23
14
17
27
3 and
No.
7
33
22
35
19
43
45
47
30
6
12
38
11
16
3
44
32
34
25
13
39
31
5
40
21
37
23
14
17
27
Type 3
1.976
0.812
0.640
0.802
-0.267
-0.181
0.726
0.802
2.062
-0.363
-0.449
-0.363
0.258
0.897
0.172
1.251
0.897
0.630
-1.336
-0.353
-0.181
0.277
2.062
-0.086
0.983
-0.897
0.630
-0.802
1.251
-0.706
Type 4
Difference
-1.182
-1.490
-1.610
-0.905
-1.821
-1.575
-0.627
-0.211
1.071
-1.220
-1.289
-1.170
-0.403
0.329
-0.391
0.718
0.389
0.227
-1.515
-0.420
-0.173
0.303
2.089
-0.033
1.048
-0.812
0.774
-0.654
1.424
-0.420
3.158
2.302
2.250
1.707
1.554
1.394
1.353
1.013
0.991
0.857
0.840
0.807
0.660
0.568
0.562
0.532
0.508
0.403
0.179
0.067
-0.008
-0.026
-0.027
-0.053
-0.064
-0.085
-0.144
-0.148
-0.173
-0.286
427
9
1
41
36
15
46
10
42
24
2
29
28
26
8
18
4
20

9
1
41
36
15
46
10
42
24
2
29
28
26
8
18
4
20
1.079
0.267
-0.277
-1.528
-0.726
-0.726
0.716
-1.251
0.086
0.277
-1.079
-1.709
-1.699
-0.535
-1.442
-1.346
-1.251
1.394
0.762
0.392
-0.841
-0.031
-0.020
1.497
-0.303
1.136
1.332
0.329
-0.235
-0.189
1.354
0.618
1.098
1.256
-0.315
-0.495
-0.669
-0.687
-0.694
-0.706
-0.781
-0.947
-1.050
-1.055
-1.408
-1.474
-1.510
-1.889
-2.060
-2.444
-2.507
428
PQMethod2.11
Factor Q-Sort Values for Each Statement
Factor Arrays
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3
1
-2
5
3
-2
-2
-4
1
4
-3
-2
-1
-2
0
-3
2
5
-5
1
2
-5
2
2
-3
-4
-1
4
1
0
-1
-3
4
2
-1
-2
-2
3
1
0
-2
-1
-3
3
0
3
2
-4
2
3
-5
4
2
-4
-4
-3
1
0
1
1
0
-4
5
-1
4
-1
3
2
0
-1
-1
-2
-2
3
4
-4
0
-3
3
1
1
0
-3
-5
-2
-5
-3
2
3
-1
3
5
-3
-3
4
4
5
-1
-3
-1
-2
0
1
4
1
-5
3
2
-5
2
3
-4
0
-1
-1
1
429
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47

Variance =
6.809
St. Dev. =
2.609
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
0
1
3
-1
3
-1
0
2
-4
0
-1
0
1
-3
0
0
-1
4
1
1
4
-2
5
-1
-2
0
-5
1
-1
0
5
-1
0
-3
1
2
5
1
3
2
1
2
-4
-2
-1
0
0
-1
-3
0
4
2
-2
2
2
1
1
-4
0
-2
-2
-2
-3
0
0
1
-1
-4
2
-2
0
0
430
PQMethod2.11
Factor Q-Sort Values for Statements sorted by Consensus vs. Disagreement (Variance across normalized Factor Scores)
Factor Arrays
No.
13
31
14
25
17
21
27
41
40
12
39
1
6
24
23
32
46
3
9
44
10
43
11
34
5
36
47
29
26

No.
13
31
14
25
17
21
27
41
40
12
39
1
6
24
23
32
46
3
9
44
10
43
11
34
5
36
47
29
26
-1
1
-2
-3
2
2
-1
0
-1
-2
0
3
-2
2
2
3
-1
-2
1
0
4
-3
-3
3
3
0
4
1
-4
-1
1
-3
-4
3
3
-3
0
-1
-2
1
0
-1
2
4
4
1
-3
3
0
1
-1
0
5
2
-2
2
0
-4
-1
1
-2
-3
4
3
-2
-1
0
-1
0
1
-1
0
1
3
-2
0
3
4
2
0
0
1
5
-4
2
-3
-5
-1
1
-2
-4
4
2
-1
1
0
-3
0
2
-3
3
2
1
0
-1
4
2
5
-4
-1
0
5
-2
0
1
0
431
2
16
35
38
45
19
15
30
37
33
20
8
42
22
28
18
7
4

2
16
35
38
45
19
15
30
37
33
20
8
42
22
28
18
7
4
1
-3
-1
-4
0
-5
0
0
2
-1
1
-4
1
-5
4
5
-2
5
-1
0
-1
-5
-3
-4
3
1
0
-2
2
-2
5
-5
1
2
-2
4
1
3
2
-1
2
0
-2
5
-2
2
-3
-1
-3
1
-5
-4
4
-4
3
1
-2
-3
-2
-5
0
2
-2
-4
3
4
-1
-5
-1
1
-3
3
432
Factor Characteristics
Factors
No. of Defining Variables
14
10
Average Rel. Coef.
0.800
0.800
0.800
0.800
Composite Reliability
0.982
0.976
0.889
0.941
S.E. of Factor Scores
0.132
0.156
0.333
0.243
Standard Errors for Differences in Normalized Factor Scores

(Diagonal Entries Are S.E. Within Factors)
Factors
0.187
0.205
0.359
0.276
0.205
0.221
0.368
0.288
0.359
0.368
0.471
0.412
0.276
0.288
0.412
0.343
433
PQMethod2.11
Distinguishing Statements for Factor

(P < .05 ;
Asterisk (*) Indicates Significance at P < .01)
Both the Factor Q-Sort Value and the Normalized Score are Shown.
Factors
No. Statement (For full statements, see Appendix 1A)

4
18
28
37
9
36
16
43
11
8
No.
1
RNK SCORE
2
RNK SCORE
3
RNK SCORE
4
RNK SCORE
4
18
28
37
9
36
16
43
11
8
5
5
4
2
1
0
-3
-3
-3
-4
4
2
1
0
3
-2
0
-1
0
-2
-4
-4
-5
-2
3
-4
3
0
0
-1
3
1
-1
-2
4
-2
1
-4
-1
4
2.05*
1.84*
1.47*
0.97*
0.21
0.04*
-0.85*
-1.01
-1.08
-1.31
1.24
0.77
0.28
0.03
1.20
-0.56
-0.12
-0.52
0.16
-0.86
-1.35
-1.44
-1.71
-0.90
1.08
-1.53
0.90
-0.18
0.26
-0.53
1.10
0.62
-0.23
-0.81
1.39
-0.84
0.33
-1.58
-0.40
1.35
434

(P < .05 ;

Factors

42
34
23
15
37
38

No.
1
RNK SCORE
2
RNK SCORE
3
RNK SCORE
4
RNK SCORE
42
34
23
15
37
38
1 0.23
3 1.10
2 0.90
0 -0.19
2 0.97
-4 -1.60
5 1.74*
5 1.68*
4 1.64*
3 1.14*
0 0.03
-5 -2.14*
-3
1
1
-2
-2
-1
-1
0
2
0
-2
-3
-1.25
0.63
0.63
-0.73
-0.90
-0.36
-0.30
0.23
0.77
-0.03
-0.81
-1.17
435

(P < .05 ;

Factors

30
7
33
35
22
24
19
29
42
20
4
18
28

No.
1
RNK SCORE
2
RNK SCORE
3
RNK SCORE
4
RNK SCORE
30
7
33
35
22
24
19
29
42
20
4
18
28
0
-2
-1
-1
-5
2
-5
1
1
1
5
5
4
1
-2
-2
-1
-5
2
-4
0
5
2
4
2
1
5
4
2
2
1
0
0
-3
-3
-3
-4
-4
-5
2
-3
-4
-2
-5
3
-5
1
-1
3
3
1
-1
0.16
-0.79
-0.42
-0.45
-1.69
0.84
-1.88
0.25
0.23
0.38
2.05
1.84
1.47
0.37
-0.62
-0.60
-0.54
-2.16
0.86
-1.79
0.21
1.74
0.74
1.24
0.77
0.28
2.06
1.98*
0.81*
0.80*
0.64*
0.09
-0.27*
-1.08*
-1.25
-1.25*
-1.35*
-1.44*
-1.71*
1.07
-1.18
-1.49
-0.91
-1.61
1.14
-1.82
0.33
-0.30
1.26
1.10
0.62
-0.23
436

(P < .05 ;
Both the Factor Q-Sort Value and the Normalized Score are Shown.
Factors

8
2
30
26
47
33
43

No.
1
RNK SCORE
2
RNK SCORE
3
RNK SCORE
4
RNK SCORE
8
2
30
26
47
33
43
-4
1
0
-4
4
-1
-3
-2
-1
1
-4
2
-2
-1
-1 -0.53
1 0.28
5 2.06
-5 -1.70
2 0.80
2 0.81
0 -0.18
4
3
2
0
0
-4
-4
-1.31
0.50
0.16
-1.59
1.39
-0.42
-1.01
-0.86
-0.43
0.37
-1.45
0.67
-0.60
-0.52
1.35*
1.33
1.07
-0.19*
-0.21
-1.49*
-1.58
437
PQMethod2.11
Consensus Statements
--
Those That Do Not Distinguish Between ANY Pair of Factors.
All Listed Statements are Non-Significant at P>.01, and Those Flagged With an * are also Non-Significant at P>.05.
Factors
No.
12
13*
14*
17*
21*
24
25*
27
31*
40
41*
No.
1
RNK SCORE
2
RNK SCORE
3
RNK SCORE
4
RNK SCORE

12
13
14
17
21
24
25
27
31
40
41
-2
-1
-2
2
2
2
-3
-1
1
-1
0
-2
-1
-3
3
3
2
-4
-3
1
-1
0
-1
-1
-2
4
3
0
-3
-2
1
0
-1
-3
-1
-2
4
2
3
-4
-1
1
0
1
QANALYZE was completet at 11:32:27
-0.69
-0.42
-0.75
0.97
0.63
0.84
-1.06
-0.65
0.30
-0.64
-0.01
-0.90
-0.43
-1.07
1.17
0.98
0.86
-1.35
-1.06
0.53
-0.35
0.05
-0.45
-0.35
-0.80
1.25
0.98
0.09
-1.34
-0.71
0.28
-0.09
-0.28
-1.29
-0.42
-0.65
1.42
1.05
1.14
-1.52
-0.42
0.30
-0.03
0.39

Legal Issues Thesis PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Issues Thesis PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN QUEENSLAND

Schools and the Law: Emerging Legal Issues Internationally

For the award of Doctor of Philosophy.

List of Figures and Tables-------------------------------------------------------------------

Publications and Presentations Related to This Work-----------------------------------

THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

The Purpose of the Study --------------------------------------------------------

Need for this Research-----------------------------------------------------------

Rationale for this Research------------------------------------------------------

Significance of Study -------------------------------------------------------------

Outline of this Study---------------------------------------------------------------

The Four Phases-------------------------------------------------------------------

Document Analysis and Legal Research----------------------------------------

The Pilot Study - Interviews-----------------------------------------------------

2.9.1 Q methodology a priori or a postieri?------------------------------

2.9.2 Q methodology discovering what people mean-------------------

2.9.3 Q methodology and human subjectivity----------------------------

2.9.4 Q methodology principles---------------------------------------------

2.9.5 Q methodology technical procedures-------------------------------

2.9.5.1 The issue-------------------------------------------------------

2.9.5.2 The procedure------------------------------------------------

2.9.5.3 Administration of Q-sort------------------------------------

2.9.5.4 Factor analysis------------------------------------------------

2.9.5.6 Writing the final accounts-----------------------------------

2.9.6 Selection of Participants------------------------------------------------

Globalisation and Singapore-----------------------------------------------------

Globalisation and Rights---------------------------------------------------------

Universal Declaration of Human Rights---------------------------------------

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)---------------------------------

CRC and the Schools-------------------------------------------------------------

3.5.1 Compulsory Education--------------------------------------------------

3.5.2 Corporal Punishment----------------------------------------------------

3.5.3 Safety in Schools---------------------------------------------------------

3.5.4 Special Education--------------------------------------------------------

Schools and the Law--------------------------------------------------------------

The Tort of Negligence-----------------------------------------------------------

4.3.1 Duty of Care---------------------------------------------------------------

4.3.2 Duty of Care when is it owed?----------------------------------------

4.3.3 The Standard of Care----------------------------------------------------

4.3.4 Foreseeability of Harm--------------------------------------------------

Other Legal Issues Arising from the Tort of Negligence --------------------

Criminal Force, Assault and Corporal Punishment --------------------------

Expulsion and Suspension--------------------------------------------------------

Anti-discrimination Legislation Special Needs Children-------------------

Sexual Misconduct of Teachers - Non-delegable Duty of Care?------------

Areas of Legal Issues in Education in the US and the Comparison with

5.3.1 Compulsory Education in the US----------------------------------------

5.3.2 Compulsory Education in Australia------------------------------------- 100

Privacy (Student Records)-------------------------------------------------------- 104

Students with Disabilities--------------------------------------------------------- 108

5.5.2 Student with Disabilities in Australia---------------------------------

5.5.3 Student with Disabilities in New Zealand----------------------------

5.5.4 Student with Disabilities in England-----------------------------------

5.5.5 Student with Disabilities in Canada-----------------------------------

5.5.6 Student with Disabilities in South Africa-----------------------------

School Safety Student Injuries and Negligence----------------------------

5.6.1 Student Injuries in the US----------------------------------------------

5.6.2 Student Injuries in Australia-------------------------------------------

5.6.3 Student Injuries in New Zealand---------------------------------------- 125

5.7.1 School Safety and Bullying in the US----------------------------------

5.7.2 Bullying in Australia------------------------------------------------------ 136

5.7.4 Bullying in England-------------------------------------------------------

5.7.5 Bullying in Canada-------------------------------------------------------